Assange speaks from embassy balcony, urges US to end 'witch hunt' and release Bradley Manning - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mingebox;37317111]It's actually something to the effect of "essential liberty" and "little temporary safety." If you wouldn't trade any liberty for security, you'd be an anarchist.[/QUOTE] Well I'm willing to trade being able to murder who ever I want for other people including the government to not be allowed to do so and cover it up.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37317051]i cited the source for who supports assange's asylum. not knowing [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas"]who i was referring to[/URL] at this point is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations"]simply embarassing[/URL][/QUOTE] I did read your source, which didn't mention UNASUR supporting the measure and in fact stated that they had not voted on at the time of publishing, so scratch that off. And second, ABLA is founded by Chavez, with Cuba and Ecuador among its few members. ABLA was founded with the direct intention to counter the U.S. and is far from unbiased. mfw you don't read your own source.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37317181]I did read your source, which didn't mention UNASUR supporting the measure and in fact stated that they had not voted on at the time of publishing, so scratch that off. And second, ABLA is founded by Chavez, with Cuba and Ecuador among its few members. ABLA was founded with the direct intention to counter the U.S. and is far from unbiased. mfw.[/QUOTE] my bad bro [url]http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elcomercio.com%2Fpolitica%2Funasur-guayaquil-asilo-Julian-Assange-Ecuador-wikileaks-Rafael-Correa_0_758324171.html[/url] enjoy this source of UNASUR support

Transparency is an important thing in most regards, governments included; if everything was kept from us we'd probably be back in some kinda damn feudal age of unshiftable monarchs and oppressed peasantry. But yes, lives are at risk when transparency compromises secrets that're kept secret for a legit understandable reason, and lives are pretty much very expensive (in a way that transcends material worth) and impossible to repair or replace, since we have nothing in the way of "storage" or "backups" or separating mind from body; nothing to prevent death's tendency to annihilate your consciousness. If death didn't do that then it wouldn't be lives at risk; it'd be bodies being at risk whilst the respective lives are able to continue somehow. Theological claptrap aside, governments should be honest and transparent, explaining exactly why they do the things they're doing, and when they absolutely need to withhold information they should at least give a legit explanation why they're withholding the info, like "if this gets out people could DIE", without falling back on cheap white-lie excuses drawn from the bottom of the deck when there's a different reason that compromises their integrity and draws public ire. This of course would depend on politicians being totally honest and uncompromising, and there are probably systems in place to prevent those rare super-honest folks from reaching a position of power, though that's the cynical conspiracy theorist in me trying to get out, so i'll leave it at that. Also there does have to be a good balance between freedom and rules, since no rules leads to wretched anarchy and no freedom leads to total control and downtreading, so [U]in my view[/U] the ideal kind of society would be an honest one with acceptable non-degrading rules, and plentiful freedom within reasonable limits.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37316975]The government hid the action. And yea, if you want to live in a free and just society, it will endanger people's lives. That's an acceptable risk. If we wanted safety we would live in a fascist society that could provide it for us.[/QUOTE] Except a fascist state wouldn't provide safety and would kill those who went against it, out governments however do not. Risking peoples lives for YOUR freedom is not okay.

Manning shouldn't have been treated the way they were, but saying that they should be released is ridiculous, it's clearly treason what he did.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37317309]Except a fascist state wouldn't provide safety and would kill those who went against it, out governments however do not. Risking peoples lives for YOUR freedom is not okay.[/QUOTE] [i]risking others lives for somebody's freedom[/i] sounds like the military

[QUOTE=Bobie;37316667][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Material_released_by_WikiLeaks[/URL] [img]http://snag.gy/lfTdB.jpg[/img] the man is a hero.[/QUOTE] But he was dumb for confessing it to that scum of Adrian Lamo. [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37317016]Chavez and Correa are not "most" of Latin America.[/QUOTE] Yeah but just the fact that Chavez is supporting the cause means that most other latin american countries will as well as they're all sucking up to Chavez [sp]for free oil[/sp]

[QUOTE=Bobie;37317221]my bad bro [url]http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elcomercio.com%2Fpolitica%2Funasur-guayaquil-asilo-Julian-Assange-Ecuador-wikileaks-Rafael-Correa_0_758324171.html[/url] enjoy this source of UNASUR support[/QUOTE] And even with this new source your initial statement is still wrong. Most of latin america doesn't "support assange" they support Ecuador's right to grant asylum as described in their resolution. Nothing about assange or what he did is mentioned anywhere. so good job.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37317589]And even with this new source your initial statement is still wrong. Most of latin america doesn't "support assange" they support Ecuador's right to grant asylum as described in their resolution. Nothing about assange or what he did is mentioned anywhere. so good job.[/QUOTE] if they had a problem with what assange was doing they wouldn't give him asylum. wikileaks has been known to recieve donations from latin america in the past, before their donation system was removed. giving him asylum is supporting him. i've given you all of the sources, stop being such a whiny bitch arguing over pedantics. you can only ever dream to achieve what assange and manning have done

[QUOTE=Ereunity;37312606]Sweden is the USA's bitch. USA wants him extradited so he can be trialled for treason. Assange fled to the UK over charges that are trumped up since he had sex with them over 2 years ago. Not to mention that one of the girls even opened and closed her case against him a couple times.[/QUOTE] USA does not officially want him extradited. That's the reason why Sweden can't promise Assange that he won't be extradited, since they need to know the crime first. They can't make promises for a person but they can make promises for a specific crime. If USA wanted him extradited both Sweden and UK would need to approve. He can't be extradited for political crimes (forbidden according to Swedish laws). It's up to the Swedish and UK judges to consider if the crime is considered political. He also can't be extradited if the crime has death penalty as a possible punishment (also forbidden). Espionage would most likely be considered a political crime and it has death penalty as a possible punishment, the chance of him being extradited for it is very very low. Besides, if USA wanted him extradited they could've done it when he was in England. Which would have made the process a lot more easier.

[QUOTE=sHiBaN;37313297]This is like a plot to a crazy government-themed story. [IMG]http://www.anime-pulse.com/forum/images/avatars/16666581904cfb0f4b51f46.jpg[/IMG] A revolutionist that is hunted throughout several countries, hmm[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with [i]Ghost in the Shell[/i].

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37316809]can you go one post without sperging out over military terminology for no discernible reason he's getting dealt with accordingly by being shuffled around from gulag to gulag so he can be used as an example of what happens when you leak shit from the US govt (you get tortured)[/QUOTE] Those things I said were standard fare when it comes to military terminology. PFC- Private First Class, PVT- Private, UCMJ- Uniform Code of Military Justice. I just did not want to make my post longer than necessary.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37317625]if they had a problem with what assange was doing they wouldn't give him asylum. wikileaks has been known to recieve donations from latin america in the past, before their donation system was removed. giving him asylum is supporting him. i've given you all of the sources, stop being such a whiny bitch arguing over pedantics. you can only ever dream to achieve what assange and manning have done[/QUOTE] Assange had my respect until he decided to do a show on that shithole of a TV station, Russia Today. What a waste, to become a tool of the Kremlin's propaganda outlet. Assange deserves better. Manning was hazed and tormented heavily by fellow soldiers for being gay, he struggled with his own gender identity, and army psychologists recommended he get sent home. You can call him a hero, and show his chat log where he claims that the information should be public, but you can't deny that this massive release of secret documents is a massive "fuck you" to the US Army. How convenient for Manning. Its funny cause your blind reverence of Assange and Manning is probably something that Assange would object to considered he opposes such closed mindedness. As for the Latin American nations, Chavez, who is staunchly anti-US, has much influence over the region, and controls ALBA. And Correa is a massive Chavez fan, who also has much influence. So it doesn't surprise me that latin america would stand in solidarity with Ecuador. But, few nations are brazen enough to openly support assange or what assange has done, and not "most" as you claimed. Get on my level. Also nice ad hominem there, a true mark of a master.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;37318099]Those things I said were standard fare when it comes to military terminology. PFC- Private First Class, PVT- Private, UCMJ- Uniform Code of Military Justice. I just did not want to make my post longer than necessary.[/QUOTE] who cares if he is PFC or PVT his possible promotion/demotion is completely irrelevant and you would have been fine just calling him pvt manning like everyone else, nobody cares in the slightest what his official technical specification is

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37318177]Assange had my respect until he decided to do a show on that shithole of a TV station, Russia Today. What a waste, to become a tool of the Kremlin's propaganda outlet. Assange deserves better. Manning was hazed and tormented heavily by fellow soldiers for being gay, he struggled with his own gender identity, and army psychologists recommended he get sent home. You can call him a hero, and show his chat log where he claims that the information should be public, but you can't deny that this massive release of secret documents is a massive "fuck you" to the US Army. How convenient for Manning. Its funny cause your blind reverence of Assange and Manning is probably something that Assange would object to considered he opposes such closed mindedness such as that. As for the Latin American nations, Chavez, who is staunchly anti-US, has much influence over the region, and controls ALBA. And Correa is a massive Chavez fan, who also has much influence. So it doesn't surprise me that latin america would stand in solidarity with Ecuador. But, few nations are brazen enough to openly support assange or what assange has done, and not "most" as you claimed. Get on my level. Also nice ad hominem there, a true mark of a master.[/QUOTE] i honestly don't care about your opinions on assange. you asked for sources in this debate, you got them. this is no longer a debate because i have given you evidence; and you are yet to counter it with anything. closed mindedness? no. i've shown you everything i can up to this point; if you have any proof of your own then i am open to that. show me that assange is crooked, a pawn of putin, a rapist, whatever; if there's [I]solid evidence[/I] then i can be swayed. and ad hominem? i think you need to re-learn what the logical fallacies are my friend; and ad hominem would be "your argument is wrong because you are a whiny bitch" instead i said "you are wrong, stop being a whiny bitch" this continuation into a straw-man argument you have provided simply reinforces my statement, that you have no grounds for an argument and you are simply on a mission to disprove me. pedantics. whiny bitching. i find it simply hilarious that you think you're on 'another level', when really you're just sperging out over your own uneducated opinion, refusing to look at the sources and facts.

He really needs to sort out the rape charge first otherwise no one will take him seriously, it's a shame that it's so hard to do.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37318209]who cares if he is PFC or PVT his possible promotion/demotion is completely irrelevant and you would have been fine just calling him pvt manning like everyone else, nobody cares in the slightest what his official technical specification is[/QUOTE] I never once posted his MOS. I was simply trying to respect him by referring to him by his proper rank.

I really think information shouldn't be kept from the public as long as it won't make it easier for people to invade or attack like what should happen in an emergency situation, bomb shelters etc. should be kept from the public forever, that shit can be pure gold to countries I'm with Julian Assange because he's doing some ballsy good in the world and he shall be remembered when he dies but people who think everything should be public domain is nuts, some shit needs to be kept from us to protect us from enemies I just think he won't make it out of the embassy unless they're organizing some tactic to extract him safely without any one being suspicious or getting him arrested

[QUOTE=Bobie;37318247]rambling[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? Since you mentioned it, Turnips5 outlined the evidence against Assange, including his lawyers own statements and you denied it as fabrication. You accepted Manning's motive without even attempting to consider ulterior motives given the position Manning was in. You're putting them on a pedestal. Is that not close minded? You claimed most LA nations support assange, then gave sources that stated most LA nations support Ecuador's sovereignty. This is not a declaration support for assange or his actions. Pedantics? You claimed something that wasn't true.... [QUOTE]you can only ever dream to achieve what assange and manning have done[/QUOTE] Belittling your opponent is ad hominem by the way. Once again, get on my level.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37318884]Are you kidding me? Since you mentioned it, Turnips5 outlined the evidence against Assange, including his lawyers own statements and you denied it as fabrication. You accepted Manning's motive without even attempting to consider ulterior motives given the position Manning was in. You're putting them on a pedestal. Is that not close minded? You claimed most LA nations support assange, then gave sources that stated most LA nations support Ecuador's sovereignty. This is not a declaration support for assange or his actions. Pedantics? You claimed something that wasn't true.... Belittling your opponent is ad hominem by the way. Once again, get on my level.[/QUOTE] evidence against assange? i've already stated that words are not evidence. if i said someone raped me, does it make it true? if someone else says i raped someone else, is it true? no. i'm waiting for real evidence. you continue to strawman the hell out of my argument. you're picking at straws, my original points still stand and i have the evidence to prove this. i've not stated that there were no ulterior motives to mannings work, more straw-manning. putting them on a pedestal? manning is a hero for what he has given us, he risked everything for freedom of information. that is my opinion and was actually irrelevant to the debate, as more of a footnote. more strawmanning. if latin american nations did not support assange they would not have supported ecuador in this, the first article states that the meeting on ecuador's choice for protecting assange. if you are trying to tell me that the meeting was [I]entirely unrelated[/I] and completely neutral towards assange then you are sorely mistaken. you cannot disprove me with simple opinion. telling me to get on your level doesn't prove anything, and your lack of sources that prove me wrong makes your argument entirely worthless.

[QUOTE=ironman17;37316863] Also, d'you think Ecuador would consider dispatching a group of bodyguards to escort Julian and prevent him from being "forcibly escorted" to Sweden and the US? Or would that cause a moderately-sized shitstorm between Ecuador and the US/Sweden, provoking the deployment of a squad of SAS guys to take Julian by force? God that scenario sounds like something from a Tom Clancy novel or the Bourne movies, and that probably isn't good at all...[/QUOTE] I don't believe they could really escort him any where because if he is somewhere that he needs that escort that would mean he no longer is under diplomatic protection.

The United States has already failed in their opportunity to grab Assange. In any attempts now would just fuel a giant debacle.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37316897]Yea, and instead of filtering through all those files himself to find something potentially damning, he gave it to an organization who would do it for him. I mean, it's the same reason why all those diplomatic cables were released as a whole instead of individually, even though there were (IIRC) millions of them. Journalists went through them and found the damning stuff. Manning is simply someone who was letting down the barrier between the government and its people so we could see it unfiltered. He allowed us to see the government for what it was versus what they want us to see. Sometimes important information is leaked and people are endangered(I don't think anyone was actually killed, however). These are risks we need to take for a transparent government.[/QUOTE] No lives should be at risk for transparency, though at least no one got hurt. Throwing Manning in a hellhole for all of this is a bit inhumane.

[QUOTE=Midas22;37315264]Actually I think you'll find its the Illuminati who framed him for sexual harrassment, he was digging too deep into the US' secrets that he almost learnt the Illuminati's darkest secret. Trust me I'm a member and part of anonymous[/QUOTE] [img]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5615/davidsarif.jpg[/img] Adam! I need you to head over to the Ukrainian embassy and get Assange out of there. I'm counting on you, son.

as much as i understand the concern of political prosecution concerning Assange and Wikileaks, i think it's an entirely different issue to this. in my opinion it's wrong to drop a sexual assault case, especially when it's such a serious accusation. what precedent are we setting by doing that?

[QUOTE=thisispain;37319649]as much as i understand the concern of political prosecution concerning Assange and Wikileaks, i think it's an entirely different issue to this. in my opinion it's wrong to drop a sexual assault case, especially when it's such a serious accusation. what precedent are we setting by doing that?[/QUOTE] What precedent are we setting by threatening to invade an embassy? Furthermore, the Ecuadorian Government have said multiple times that they're willing to come up with a compromise, allowing him to be questioned if the US guarantees he won't be extradited, or even just questioned about it in Ecuador. If the British Government was so concerned about the sexual assault case being seen through, rather than capturing Assange, then the obvious solution is to allow it to be done by Swedish prosecutors on Ecuadorian soil where the public can't object to threat of extradition until there is sufficient legal grounding to do so - particularly because they don't need to be on Swedish soil to question him. That would be the obvious and easy solution for the British Government if it's primary concern was seeing through the accusations of sexual assault laid on him - in fact they're spending tonnes of money besieging the Ecuadorian Embassy and making sure he can't leave. So that leaves the question as to why they don't seek a compromise. Anyway, this isn't the first time a whistleblower has been subsequently charged with a criminal offence which on further investigation is on incredibly shaky ground. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr8d8BLBymI[/url] That's all the speeches that went on that day - the interesting one is the one by Craig Murray who leaked some CIA documents a while back, and then was charged with a criminal offence which he was later to be found innocent of. Same with a woman who leaked documents by Donald Rumsfeld authorising torture, and then the next day was found guilty of shoplifting. As the guy rightfully points out, this woman was high ranking in the US army, and had just leaked a major political document and was charged for shoplifting the very next day. So essentially, if the British Government's primary concern was to seek justice for the women accusing him of sexual assault, there are many options open that allow them to do so which also serves to put the public's mind at rest concerning the threat of extradition to the US - but they aren't taking those options which is problem #1. Problem #2 is that both Britain and America have set a precedent in persecuting whistleblowers (or there is a pattern in those states that points to this) on criminal offences as opposed to political ones under which they would be protected. If you put it all together (and I haven't even mentioned the suspicious timing of the cases, the changing stories, and above all the fact that an employee at that Stratfor agency that anonymous released documents from said the cases were trumped up in an email) it's plainly obvious that the sexual assault cases are not going to result in him being tried for sexual assault and put in a Swedish prison. This isn't a case of seeking justice by trying to extradite a man who doesn't even need to be extradited to be questioned by prosecutors. Anyway in my opinion, he will answer to these crimes when it's safe to do so - it's not safe to do so but that doesn't mean the case is going to be laid to rest forevermore.

[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37313358]I can't. I'd need to see the laws: I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Australia doesn't, as a rule, extradite for political offences (which is what any US charge would be).[/QUOTE] Julia Gillard(our current Prime Minister) would easily give him up.

[QUOTE=Zet;37320286]Julia Gillard(our current Prime Minister) would easily give him up.[/QUOTE] I would hope not. I think it's Australia's policy not to extradite to countries where the charges could result in the death penalty.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37319649]as much as i understand the concern of political prosecution concerning Assange and Wikileaks, i think it's an entirely different issue to this. in my opinion it's wrong to drop a sexual assault case, especially when it's such a serious accusation. what precedent are we setting by doing that?[/QUOTE] Because the investigation does not need to happen in Sweden. Sweden can and have in the past been able to send over investigators, but they refuse to accept the invitation to do so and demand that he's returned back to Sweden first. This, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery]alongside this very similar situation between Sweden and the US[/url], does in my opinion make his suspicion pretty justified. Aside from this... there's also a lot of uncertainty about the credibility of the accusations. [editline]20th August 2012[/editline] I don't think they need to dismiss the accusations entirely, but there's no reason they can't settle the matter without bringing him to Sweden first.