"same protections any other Australian citizen would"
Surely this also means, "same extradition treaties to the US that any other Australian citizen would be subject to"?
Hmmm it sounds too good to be true... It's a wrap, Julian, don't fall for it!
I feel sad for Assange.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;26526696]a trap is something you're lured into
they are making it obvious that he wouldn't be given sanctuary for his crimes in australia. no western country does that except in special cases.
therefore it's not a trap. they just had to respond to his claims that he can't go back to australia. he made it seem as if australia didn't want him. now they're clarifying that they have nothing against him themselves.
[editline]6th December 2010[/editline]
"special cases" are ones where the person's human rights wouldn't be respected if he was handed over to some other country and he can go nowhere else. for example I doubt Australia would hand him over to the USA if he faced death penalty there.[/QUOTE][img]http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/Forum%20comments/itsatrapsafe.jpg[/img]
go to a country without an extradition treaty
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26527655]go to a country without an extradition treaty[/QUOTE]
You would need to find a country with no extradition treaty to the US or to Sweden.
I wonder, is he liked in North Korea? Iran?
The real problem would be him leaving the UK (if he is indeed here), as soon as his passport is checked alarm bells will be ringing.
Obviously a trap.
[QUOTE=**Chris**;26526642]This right here, gentlemen. This right here.[/QUOTE]
It isn't censorship, it's the government trying to put an end to a security leak. Christ.
For the billionth time: Whistleblowing is not only legal, but PROTECTED, in the United States. But that only applies if you only release information which suggestions corruption or illicit practices of some sort. When you also release things like personal conversations between ranking government officials, or a list of locations which the United States considers prime targets for terrorism, you are no longer a whistleblower, you are a serious security threat.
Now couple that with the "insurance" file floating about which supposedly contains uncensored documents, and he is putting a great deal of lives at risk without cause.
You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT. It takes 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking to realize that a completely transparent government is completely non-functional and invites corruption to the extreme.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]It isn't censorship, it's the government trying to put an end to a security leak. Christ.
For the billionth time: Whistleblowing is not only legal, but PROTECTED, in the United States. But that only applies if you only release information which suggestions corruption or illicit practices of some sort. When you also release things like personal conversations between ranking government officials, or a list of locations which the United States considers prime targets for terrorism, you are no longer a whistleblower, you are a serious security threat.
Now couple that with the "insurance" file floating about which supposedly contains uncensored documents, and he is putting a great deal of lives at risk without cause.
You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT. It takes 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking to realize that a completely transparent government is completely non-functional and invites corruption to the extreme.[/QUOTE]
Well said, sir.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]It isn't censorship, it's the government trying to put an end to a security leak. Christ.
For the billionth time: Whistleblowing is not only legal, but PROTECTED, in the United States. But that only applies if you only release information which suggestions corruption or illicit practices of some sort. When you also release things like personal conversations between ranking government officials, or a list of locations which the United States considers prime targets for terrorism, you are no longer a whistleblower, you are a serious security threat.
Now couple that with the "insurance" file floating about which supposedly contains uncensored documents, and he is putting a great deal of lives at risk without cause.
You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT. It takes 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking to realize that a completely transparent government is completely non-functional and invites corruption to the extreme.[/QUOTE]
Wikileaks is never going to release all the secrets the government has, and I agree that releasing the details about the locations that the US is worried about terrorism, but I do think that something like wikileaks is useful, not for actually releasing the documents, but government having to be careful not to have secrets that are damaging if their released. Their threat to security has been greatly over exaggerated as the list is about areas that the US is worried about and their protecting.
[QUOTE=Kingy_why;26527862]Wikileaks is never going to release all the secrets the government has, and I agree that releasing the details about the locations that the US is worried about terrorism, but I do think that something like wikileaks is useful, not for actually releasing the documents, but government having to be careful not to have secrets that are damaging if their released. Their threat to security has been greatly over exaggerated as the list is about areas that the US is worried about and their protecting.[/QUOTE]
Every government has extremely dangerous secrets.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]It isn't censorship, it's the government trying to put an end to a security leak. Christ.
For the billionth time: Whistleblowing is not only legal, but PROTECTED, in the United States. But that only applies if you only release information which suggestions corruption or illicit practices of some sort. When you also release things like personal conversations between ranking government officials, or a list of locations which the United States considers prime targets for terrorism, you are no longer a whistleblower, you are a serious security threat.
Now couple that with the "insurance" file floating about which supposedly contains uncensored documents, and he is putting a great deal of lives at risk without cause.
You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT. It takes 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking to realize that a completely transparent government is completely non-functional and invites corruption to the extreme.[/QUOTE]
After 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking I still didn't realize how a completely transparent government could invite more corruption than a secretive one. Care to elaborate?
[editline]6th December 2010[/editline]
Also do note that I consider a dysfunctional government better than one that achieves lack of corruption and functionality in secret via means that aren't accepted by the people, like some sort of purges.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;26528188]After 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking I still didn't realize how a completely transparent government could invite more corruption than a secretive one. Care to elaborate?
[editline]6th December 2010[/editline]
Also do note that I consider a dysfunctional government better than one that achieves lack of corruption and functionality in secret via means that aren't accepted by the people, like some sort of purges.[/QUOTE]
For the government to function, you need secrets. To have secrets in a transparent government, you need corruption.
So in order for a transparent government to function even remotely, you need to have corruption.
Ultimately rather than having secrets kept from the people, but still retaining congressional oversight, you wind up with every branch of the government being forced to basically do everything off the books and abandon any sort of paper trail or oversight of any kind.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]It isn't censorship, it's the government trying to put an end to a security leak. Christ.
For the billionth time: Whistleblowing is not only legal, but PROTECTED, in the United States. But that only applies if you only release information which suggestions corruption or illicit practices of some sort. When you also release things like personal conversations between ranking government officials, or a list of locations which the United States considers prime targets for terrorism, you are no longer a whistleblower, you are a serious security threat.
Now couple that with the "insurance" file floating about which supposedly contains uncensored documents, and he is putting a great deal of lives at risk without cause.
You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT. It takes 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking to realize that a completely transparent government is completely non-functional and invites corruption to the extreme.[/QUOTE]
I agree with GunFox. Wikileaks is cool when they are exposing corruption or illegal activities. It's not cool that they are exposing things said in private between diplomats and other state officials, unless those state officials were talking about some sort of corruption or something.
Seriously, I want some cool leaks like how Bank of America is corrupt or things that are genuinely eye opening.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;26528484]I agree with GunFox. Wikileaks is cool when they are exposing corruption or illegal activities. It's not cool that they are exposing things said in private between diplomats and other state officials, unless those state officials were talking about some sort of corruption or something.
Seriously, I want some cool leaks like how Bank of America is corrupt or things that are genuinely eye opening.[/QUOTE]
Or Federal Reserve... Let's hear about some inflation!
[QUOTE=GunFox;26528468]For the government to function, you need secrets.[/QUOTE]
This post is sound, but based on a premise I don't agree with.
It's an archaic concept that the ruler needs to "know better" than the people what is necessary, and to be able to do what they think is necessary they must lie to the people.
That doesn't need to be the case in modern society and especially not in internal affairs.
If that's not what you meant, do clarify. There's just no reasoning for the claim that governments must hold secrets. It's unfortunately true that all governments have secrets and especially like to hold onto them during war, but it's very pessimistic to claim that it's the only way to have a functioning government.
I don't understand how a transparent government 'must' require corruption. How the fuck does that work.
GunFox just explained it. It follows from the assumption that governments require secrets. Transparent governments can't hold secrets as a whole, so either they don't function or the secrets are held by individuals. For individuals to hold secrets of such importance, there must be systems to suppress information about them, to erase their links and generally ensure that their secrets are kept. The nature of the secrets itself must be a secret. What is there to stop the misuse of such a system for personal gain?
The assumption is questionable though.
So who do we allow to draw the line between necessary secrets and the unjust withholding of information from the public? Do we allow the government of the united states to make that choice for us? The United Nations? Julian Assange? /b/?
[url]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/06/assanges-lawyer-confirms-talks-with-uk-police/[/url]
aint that some shit
If I was Assange I'd start thinking about who his allies really are, and who he can trust. Which at this point I would assume nobody.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]It isn't censorship, it's the government trying to put an end to a security leak. Christ.
For the billionth time: Whistleblowing is not only legal, but PROTECTED, in the United States. But that only applies if you only release information which suggestions corruption or illicit practices of some sort. When you also release things like personal conversations between ranking government officials, or a list of locations which the United States considers prime targets for terrorism, you are no longer a whistleblower, you are a serious security threat.
Now couple that with the "insurance" file floating about which supposedly contains uncensored documents, and he is putting a great deal of lives at risk without cause.
You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT. It takes 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking to realize that a completely transparent government is completely non-functional and invites corruption to the extreme.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R_hVLfH63-M/Sb7dQQ7MDLI/AAAAAAAABIE/7F5vINtZyYs/s320/Boxes+Stacked+Up.jpg[/img]
Since this is a box post, you must rate dumb if you agree.
See, people think I'm right.
I thrive on your boxes...
Maybe Assange should get a clone, or a decoy to send first.
[QUOTE=**Chris**;26530397][img_thumb]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R_hVLfH63-M/Sb7dQQ7MDLI/AAAAAAAABIE/7F5vINtZyYs/s320/Boxes+Stacked+Up.jpg[/img_thumb]
Since this is a box post, you must rate dumb if you agree.[/QUOTE]
I rated you dumb because you're acting dumb.
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;26525043]Assange is stuck in a real life movie thriller.[/QUOTE]
I wreckon in 5-15 years we'll definitely have a movie about it. Including the climax.
Wikileaks: The Julian Assange story
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26532861]I rated you dumb because you're acting dumb.[/QUOTE]
Great, thanks for that agree.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT. It takes 30 seconds of basic fucking logical thinking to realize that a completely transparent government is completely non-functional and invites corruption to the extreme.[/QUOTE]
Most still call themselves a Democracy anyway and if the people want to possibly endager themselves by knowing secrets then so be it. That's the theory, ALSO WRITING IN ALL CAPS MAKES EVERYTHING I SAY TRUE.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]Now couple that with the "insurance" file floating about which supposedly contains uncensored documents, and he is putting a great deal of lives at risk without cause. [/QUOTE]
That insurance file is completely harmless without the passphrase for it, no one's cracking it any time soon.
"Assange has the rights of any Australian citizen. He has the right to come back to Australia, the right to be arrested, the right to remain silent, and the right to be beaten to the full extent of the law"
:v:
[editline]7th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;26527748]You DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT.[/QUOTE]
Sort of an odd statement. Since the files are readily available, I'd say otherwise. Nobody asks to be born into a specific country, everything is your right, and nobody defines your rights. However, if your rights violate a law that somebody else has set, then there will be consequences. Laws don't define your rights, they are just invisible guidelines that outline consequences.
I don't feel strongly one way or another about the whole Wikileaks scenario, but if a government is unable to contain it's "secrets" then clearly it's within my rights to know everything about my government, since nothing is really stopping me from reading those documents. Just as unless somebody actually [I]stops[/I] assange from utilizing his rights, it's clearly still within his rights to leak government information. Personally, I think he should continue, and I don't see much wrong with it. If governments weren't comprised of petty, worthless individuals, there'd be no secrets to hide. Freedom of Information as a whole is more important than laws and regimes that are a blink of history's eye.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;26529345]This post is sound, but based on a premise I don't agree with.
It's an archaic concept that the ruler needs to "know better" than the people what is necessary, and to be able to do what they think is necessary they must lie to the people.
That doesn't need to be the case in modern society and especially not in internal affairs.
If that's not what you meant, do clarify. There's just no reasoning for the claim that governments must hold secrets. It's unfortunately true that all governments have secrets and especially like to hold onto them during war, but it's very pessimistic to claim that it's the only way to have a functioning government.[/QUOTE]
It isn't about them necessarily "knowing better".
This cable release is an excellent example of things that we don't, and shouldn't, know. Some of it is evidence of corruption, which is fine to release. It can, and should, be brought to light.
But just the various communications? Various candid opinions of Diplomats which go into the file of world leaders and such? These things hurt diplomatic relations and aren't corrupt or even remotely morally wrong. It's just honest opinions.
The secrets kept by the government even spread to things like social security numbers, your background, things which could hurt you if ever brought to light, but are simply a part of the administrative portion of government.
Spies operating in other nations who try to quietly head off potential wars and terrorist attacks every day. Special operations who sidestep diplomatic red tape and move into a nation we aren't at war with and retrieve wounded pilots from crashed aircraft.
There are a million and one legitimate reasons to keep secrets.
We certainly have secrets being kept which cover up wrong-doing, but again, whistleblower protection. You find evidence of illegal activity, and it is legal to reveal that information.
We also have secrets which are more of a grey area. Like Turkey funding terrorism. What do you do with that information? If you tell your own public and the world, then you could permanently damage relations with Turkey and basically cripple all hope of eventually using diplomatic means of getting them to stop. Fortunately in this case, it was leaked instead of announced, which mitigates the diplomatic damage to a degree.
This post was poorly constructed, but hopefully it makes the point clear. Secrets aren't always big conspiracies. Most of the time they are small and generally necessary to retain peace.
[editline]6th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Nerts;26534279]That insurance file is completely harmless without the passphrase for it, no one's cracking it any time soon.[/QUOTE]
Until assange shows up in court for the rape case and he releases the key.
[editline]6th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26530095]So who do we allow to draw the line between necessary secrets and the unjust withholding of information from the public? Do we allow the government of the united states to make that choice for us? The United Nations? Julian Assange? /b/?[/QUOTE]
We are a Republic. The entire point of this type of government is that you elect officials that you believe will operate the government in the most honest fashion possible.
You are not, and cannot be, informed. Therefore you find someone you trust and vote for them to serve as your proxy in the government, making decisions in your best interest using the expanded information that is available to him as well as his potentially advanced education.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.