• Julian Assange arrested
    506 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;26544469]Assange in court, LIVE here; [url]http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10012202[/url] Just press play. (There's nothing exciting going on just yet, but it's worth having a look IMO - there will be a view of inside the court soon.) [editline]7th December 2010[/editline] I think...[/QUOTE] Ow, I think I went deaf.
[QUOTE=Jallen;26543669]First off, we aren't talking about military here, we are talking about government. Secondly, even if we were talking about military, you've made huge [citation needed] statements there. Why [I]wouldn't[/I] terrorists attack places given on the list? Finally, it's obvious that terrorists don't [I]need[/I] the information released by wikileaks, but so much of it is so irrelevant to the general public that the only people who really would have any reason to read it are terrorists. Niether did anyone say that this information is a "[I]crippling[/I] threat", but it [I]is[/I] a threat. I'm not scared of terrorists like everyone seems to imply when you say that wikileaks could be dangerous. There's a difference between caution and fear. I don't believe that the current information released is truely dangerous, but the afghan informants leak and the list of crucial national security facility leak are both treading on very dangerous ground. It's obvious that wikileaks don't thoroughly scan their entire releases (and if they do then I really wonder if they think about the political implications of their releases), which makes wikileaks potentially extremely dangerous. Some things are best kept secret from the public, for security reasons.[/QUOTE] What makes you say that they don't scan their releases? They screen everything they release. How else would they have organized databases for accessing all of it? How else would they compile all of it so documents are relevant to each other? That's a hilariously stupid statement you're making. Please, tell me what information is going to fall into the hands of terrorists and start making targets out of us. So far we haven't seen anything other than governments in a panic to plug their leak, so I'm gonna have to pull [citation needed] back on you. How is it irrelevant to the general public? Government secrets that are unknown to the public that is [B]represented by this government[/B] makes it all perfectly relevant. I can't believe how little you're thinking about this. Do you still not understand what they're doing? Have you even read the documents? All you're doing is feeding off media fear mongering and you're doing a damn fine job at making an ass of yourself. By stereotyping other users as you have here: [QUOTE=Jallen;26542787]This. The majority of Assange supporters seem to be left wing libertarian teenagers with little comprehension of the implications of the wikileaks releasing a lot of their stuff.[/QUOTE] you come off as an absolute twat. Ironically it's you that has no comprehension of what they're doing. You give no evidence to support your claims and are subtly contradicting yourself. If you're not seeing what I mean by that statement, reread "I don't believe that the current information is truely dangerous, but the afghan informants leak and the list of crucial national security facility leak are both treading on very dangerous ground." PLEASE show me real evidence that this has benefited any "terrorist" effort. To you it seems a terrorist is anyone who isn't for the US and is waving a gun around. The way you fling the word around shows how much you subscribe to everything that's wrong with the media. Instead of covering all of these scandals and such that haven't been known for the [B]past 40 years[/B] all the media is doing is debating whether or not Julian Assange should be killed or if Wikileaks is a terrorist organization in itself. They're creating ignorance and you're blissfully following it. Great job being dumb as hell.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;26544619]From wikileaks Facebook: [I]"Today's actions against our editor-in-chief Julian Assange won't affect our operations: we will release more cables tonight as normal"[/I][/QUOTE] This just proves the point that Assange is not much more than a face of Wikileaks. The BBC seem to be having a nightmare reporting on this and everything else that's happening right now. [editline]7th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=imadaman;26544629]Ow, I think I went deaf.[/QUOTE] What are you seeing / hearing now? I'm seeing a news article now with the headline "- Assange hadde sex med henne uten kondom" I laughed, I am assuming that is something along the lines of Assange had sex without a condom.
[QUOTE=Jsm;26544634] What are you seeing / hearing now? I'm seeing a news article now with the headline "- Assange hadde sex med henne uten kondom" I laughed, I am assuming that is something along the lines of Assange had sex without a condom.[/QUOTE] Correct. They removed the live feed from the article that went down with a "Beeeeeeee" sound and some warning text.
BBC are now reporting that he has not consented to the extradition, effectively stating that he is going to appeal. They are also considering to bail him or not, apparently the prosecution are worried he would be at risk from "unstable people".
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;26542790]The negative consequences are momentary, the positive ones are forever.[/QUOTE] Well said. I doubt a war will start with any of the information we've seen so far. It's making changes. So laissez faire
Oh and sky are now reporting that the Australian high commission are providing legal assistance to Assange.
Who cares if Assange gets arrested? Other people will continue the "leakage" of documents, Wikileaks is not made of just one person.
[QUOTE=Kommunist;26544752]Who cares if Assange gets arrested? Other people will continue the "leakage" of documents, Wikileaks is not made of just one person.[/QUOTE] He's a figurehead and incredibly important to the face of the organization. They need a public face in order to be recognized and taken seriously.
Sky now has an "expert" that was in the court saying that Assange is possibly considering claiming asylum. I dunno in which country though.
[QUOTE=Jsm;26544784]Sky now has an "expert" that was in the court saying that Assange is possibly considering claiming asylum. I dunno in which country though.[/QUOTE] He(Julian) said something about Switzerland once, I think.
[QUOTE=Jsm;26544342] On another site I likened it to Bush being arrested for a minor crime and people going about as if he had been arrested for war crimes.[/QUOTE] Except bush is no longer the president, and even if he was, there is more than just good ol' George Dubya running the show. People find it so easy to demonize the guy in the spotlight, but little do they know that the figurehead (whether it be Julian Assange, president Bush or Osama Bin Laden) is in a position of power because of the people encircling what they do. Julian can't preen through government documents.. It is all these leaky risk takers submitting information with the intent to show corruption. Show me some confidential shit that does not show corruption.
What are the "doomsday files" ?
[QUOTE=danelo;26544911]What are the "doomsday files" ?[/QUOTE] Stop calling it "doomsday files", it's a silly name. It's a 1.4GB big file, that's (nearly) impossible to crack. It's also known as the "Insurance file". The key will be released if anything happens to Assagne or the website.
Well damn right he should have some insurance. If they're oh so scared of what he's released thus far, and they've kicked up such an international fuss about what he's done already-- he might as well use that fear against them. How long have we been the ones feeling fear from our government, and our media? "HOLY FUCK ITS SWINE FLU. WE BETTER GET VACCINATED BY THIS POORLY TESTED CONCOCTION. SWINE FLU IS A BIG PROBLEM OH GOD." Did you guys forget about that big scare last year? Yeah that wasn't really a big problem at all. For once it's someone else being the source of fear mongering for the ones in power. I don't give a fuck, and neither am I being angsty about saying I don't give a fuck about these leaks being released. I don't see it starting a war anytime soon. You don't have to be a guerrilo to accept it.
Apparently, that Insurance file is some 256 bit AES encrypted file that contains the rest of the cablegate documents.
[QUOTE=Kommunist;26544969]Apparently, that Insurance file is some 256 bit AES encrypted file that contains the rest of the cablegate documents.[/QUOTE] I heard that it contains all the cables and some other "damaging" stuff.
[QUOTE=danelo;26544911]What are the "doomsday files" ?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Nerts;26544210]"Doomsday file" is a dumb name for it, it's called insurance.aes256. [url=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5636656/WikiLeaks_insurance.5723136.TPB.torrent]HERE[/url] is a torrent for it but it's useless without the passphrase, that's what's being threatened at the moment. No one knows what's in it, could be access codes for everything ever, a virus with a gig or so of filler or a 1080p Rickroll.[/QUOTE] From what I posted in one of the other threads. Also, AES256 is theoretically possible to crack, it's just that it would take a few hundred thousand billion years to do so.
Apparently he has been remanded in custody (ie refused bail) and the hearing will be on the 14th of this month.
Well Merry fucking Christmas Assange.
I don't think he will be jailed. Those charges are only a minor offense in Sweden.
[QUOTE=Kommunist;26545190]I don't think he will be jailed. Those charges are only a minor offense in Sweden.[/QUOTE] Sex crimes are minor charges?
[QUOTE=doggyalt;26544631]What makes you say that they don't scan their releases? They screen everything they release. How else would they have organized databases for accessing all of it? How else would they compile all of it so documents are relevant to each other? That's a hilariously stupid statement you're making. [B]How and why do afghan informant names get into a screened release?[/B] Please, tell me what information is going to fall into the hands of terrorists and start making targets out of us. So far we haven't seen anything other than governments in a panic to plug their leak, so I'm gonna have to pull [citation needed] back on you. How is it irrelevant to the general public? Government secrets that are unknown to the public that is [B]represented by this government[/B] makes it all perfectly relevant. I can't believe how little you're thinking about this. [B]I didn't say everything was irrelevant to the general public, I said that a lot of it was. What exactly does your average citizen gain by reading a document listing all of the facilities deemed crucial to US national security?[/B] Do you still not understand what they're doing? Have you even read the documents? All you're doing is feeding off media fear mongering and you're doing a damn fine job at making an ass of yourself. By stereotyping other users as you have here: you come off as an absolute twat. Ironically it's you that has no comprehension of what they're doing. You give no evidence to support your claims and are subtly contradicting yourself. If you're not seeing what I mean by that statement, reread "I don't believe that the current information is truely dangerous, but the afghan informants leak and the list of crucial national security facility leak are both treading on very dangerous ground." PLEASE show me real evidence that this has benefited any "terrorist" effort. [B]Giving a murderer a gun is a stupid thing to do, regardless of whether he's shot anyone with it yet.[/B] To you it seems a terrorist is anyone who isn't for the US and is waving a gun around. The way you fling the word around shows how much you subscribe to everything that's wrong with the media. [B]A terrorist is somebody who terrorises. To release a governments sensitive information is in effect (and arguably), terrorism (as it terrorises the government, purposefully or not), whether or not that fits the current popular usage of the word, which has ironically been popularised by the media which you are describing as being so wrong.[/B] Instead of covering all of these scandals and such that haven't been known for the [B]past 40 years[/B] all the media is doing is debating whether or not Julian Assange should be killed or if Wikileaks is a terrorist organization in itself. They're creating ignorance and you're blissfully following it. [B]The BBC does niether of these things and is the news source I'm following and have always followed.[/B] Great job being dumb as hell. [B]That's constructive.[/B][/QUOTE] My responses in bold. I think you're taking it way too heavily here. I'm not saying Assange or Wikileaks are terrorists, I'm not implying Wikileaks should be taken down. What I'm saying is that Wikileaks has released sensitive information which could easily be used to aid terrorism. It was extremely irresponsible to release the names of afghan informants, if members of Al Quada were to read that list they would know exactly who had been a problem for them, who knows, perhaps they would go so far as to find and kill them? I have no problem with wikileaks as long as it releases only information which exposes misjustice and internal government affairs, expense claim frauds etc. Why exactly would a member of the public need to know the US's Russian invasion Baltic defense plan?
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;26542775]He opened the gates to a world where people aren't left in the dark so that less decisions are carried out by the government alone. A [B]true[/B] democratic world. My father (51) says "I think he's doing a great feat for humanity"[/QUOTE] Nope. He's a dumbass who released a bunch of low level data. He released the kind of stuff army privates and low level diplomats know and have access to. He's an asshole attention whore. He didn't really even need to be stopped.
Fuck yeah. Sweden is my next vacation plan. Just hop on plane to stockholm with a bottle of chloroform, a rag, some zipties and a whole lotta liqour.
[QUOTE=Jsm;26542736]At least if he does go to jail it will be in Sweden, I hear the prisons there are pretty good.[/QUOTE] He won't be there long, no matter where he ends up, the last stop is going to be the USA, because every country is up America's ass. And then he'll be executed.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26544965]Well damn right he should have some insurance. If they're oh so scared of what he's released thus far, and they've kicked up such an international fuss about what he's done already-- he might as well use that fear against them. [B]How long have we been the ones feeling fear from our government, and our media? "HOLY FUCK ITS SWINE FLU. WE BETTER GET VACCINATED BY THIS POORLY TESTED CONCOCTION. SWINE FLU IS A BIG PROBLEM OH GOD." Did you guys forget about that big scare last year? Yeah that wasn't really a big problem at all.[/B] For once it's someone else being the source of fear mongering for the ones in power. I don't give a fuck, and neither am I being angsty about saying I don't give a fuck about these leaks being released. I don't see it starting a war anytime soon. You don't have to be a guerrilo to accept it.[/QUOTE] I've said it a hundred times before. The problem with swine flu was its potential to spread based on nobody having immunity, not its potency to kill or its chance of killing a carrier. Even if it's less likely to kill a person than flu, if EVERYONE has it, then it will kill more people. Furthermore even if 1/5 of the population caught it and only a very small amount died, think about how the economy would have froze during that period, where 1/5 of the country were unable to work. I find it really sad that scientists and government officials who put so much effort into keeping it contained and warning the public are now seen as scaremongers. What they did WORKED. [I]That[/I] is why it wasn't a big problem. It's not like they did no research on swine flu and just sent out a wave of panic.
[QUOTE=**Chris**;26545213]He won't be there long, no matter where he ends up, the last stop is going to be the USA, because every country is up America's ass. And then he'll be executed.[/QUOTE] Its being reported on the news that if there's even a hint of seriousness in that possibility the entire extradition could be stopped.
[QUOTE=faze;26545201]Sex crimes are minor charges?[/QUOTE] Not sex crimes, but making sex with 2 woman without condom :v: That's a minor offense.
€20 says he is already dead
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.