**WARNING DARK TOPIC** A sick/dark new twist to Assange losing his internet connection.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Just now, mormont said:

I saw it. But to be brutally honest, I didn't even think it was worth replying to.

This is a passive aggressive attempt to hide your inability to respond to the point, nothing more. If that's where you want to leave the discussion I'm perfectly content that I've made my case.

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said:

did you really ask if Swedish prisons are bad? I'd think if your innocent any prison would be bad.

If he ever leaves that embassy he's going to spend the rest of his life in a maximum security federal prison in Colorado, 23 hours a day spent in solitary confinement. If he's lucky.

I'd take the drone.

[BloodRider]

36 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Maybe he doesn't have anything on Trump?

Then he hasn't bothered to look.  Which tells me much about where he is coming from.  I am not so cavalier about someone who has tacitly agreed to influence democratic elections by distributing propaganda.  But just so we don't have to keep addressing your fake concern trolling, lets point out the other ways he is bad for Democracy and has harmed people.

• Released info on Turkish women voters in the middle of a coup, putting their freedom and lives in danger
• Released US Dem party donors financial info, putting them at risk for identity theft
• Joined with the Alt-right, and released anti-semetic tweets.
• Threatening Journalists who question them about data they delete and / or censor (so to recap - if you donate to the DNC it is OK to release your info, if you are a high level Russian official colluding with Syria you get filtered)
• Releasing names of Afghans who worked with US force - this leads to many killings, which Assange said was OK - because "They're informants, so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
• Releasing the names of in-country and foreign journalists who contacted an American embassy about freedom of the press issues.  This too has lead to several provable death, and many deaths that are almost certainly due to Assange irresponsibly dumping this info.

I'll stop there, but FUCK THIS GUY.

But most fundamentally, he claims to want to uncover corruption in service of Democracy, then claims to actively trying to sabotage only one party in the US election, or give China the names of journalists who talked to the US, or censors information at the behest of a non-democratic government.  His words and his actions are fundamentally at odds.  And it means he is no longer a useful information source.

Compare the shit he does vs. how Snowden handles his releases, or the Panama papers were released - by people who did real work by real journalists.  They were able to do the same good that Assange has done without all the harm.  Assange looks like a petulant propaganda tool who will sacrifice a thousand "pawns" to get his way.  He's disgusting.  

Thing is - people with real information of import now know this.  Why would they go to Assange now, when Snowden and The Intercept have shown that they are responsible and still get the information out there?  SO he is now in this downward spiral, where the only people who send him stuff are the people with an agenda.  Want to disrupt an election?  Assange'll do it!  Want to fuel a coup?  Assange'll do it!  

Doesn't mean he did (or didn't do) what he is accused of here tho......

 

[DunderMifflin]

I, for one refuse to believe that any news organization(is wikileaks considered a news organization?)  would ever be biased towards any candidate. That's just tin foil hat talk there.

[BloodRider]

20 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yes.

At least as many people are hostile to Trump as are hostile to Clinton. At the same time, there's much more available material on Trump. But somehow, wikileaks has had leaks about Clinton but not Trump? Why would that be?

There's only one possible explanation and it doesn't speak well of wikileaks. That explanation is that people who wish to expose Trump, don't bother taking their information to wikileaks. Which invites the question - why not? Possibly because they believe wikileaks aren't interested?

I'd say it's because they believe wikileaks is irresponsible, and there are other options that have a proven track record of handling such material in a mature fashion with journalistic integrity and an eye to minimizing harm for non-involved parties.  And, yeah, also Wikileaks would probably bury it.  

You know what, it sure would be interesting if the next Trump leaker took it to Wikileaks first - just to see.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

If he ever leaves that embassy he's going to spend the rest of his life in a maximum security federal prison in Colorado, 23 hours a day spent in solitary confinement. If he's lucky.

I'd take the drone.

I'm fairly certain the U.S. doesn't have any extradition request with the British against Assange, only the Swedes do. If he ever leaves that embassy, British police would turn him over to the Swedes.

Maybe the US would put a request in with the Swedes, and maybe they'd extradite him to the US after the resolution of their pending rape charges. So after a trial (if found innocent) or after a trial and a stint in a Swedish prison (if found guilty). But I'm not sure what charges the US could even bring against Assange, unless they found out that he actually stole any documents himself; rather than just publishing them.

I can't stand Assange, but from a legal perspective, his situation is very different from Snowden or Manning. Right now, its just the rape charges that he's facing.

[BloodRider]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I, for one refuse to believe that any news organization(is wikileaks considered a news organization?)  would ever be biased towards any candidate. That's just tin foil hat talk there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html

What size tin foil hat do you take?  

[DunderMifflin]

If its already for a known fact that there's much more available material against Trump, then you wouldn't be exposing anything. Because ya know, it's already a known fact.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

3 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Then he hasn't bothered to look.  Which tells me much about where he is coming from.  I am not so cavalier about someone who has tacitly agreed to influence democratic elections by distributing propaganda.  But just so we don't have to keep addressing your fake concern trolling, lets point out the other ways he is bad for Democracy and has harmed people.

 

Sure is strange that you feel the need to attack my motives like this, but I'm not defending wikileaks/Assange in all things. I'm defending the specific choice to release the DNC/Podesta emails. In fact, I'm far less skeptical of the criminal allegations against Assange than you are. That doesn't delegitimize everything wikileaks has done. The argument that wikileaks ought to have leaked documents on Trump, I've already answered- it's the comment I made that mormont believes is beneath response. Perhaps you believe the same, since you don't address it either.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm fairly certain the U.S. doesn't have any extradition request with the British against Assange, only the Swedes do. If he ever leaves that embassy, British police would turn him over to the Swedes.

Maybe the US would put a request in with the Swedes, and maybe they'd extradite him to the US after the resolution of their pending rape charges. So after a trial (if found innocent) or after a trial and a stint in a Swedish prison (if found guilty). But I'm not sure what charges the US could even bring against Assange, unless they found out that he actually stole any documents himself; rather than just publishing them.

I can't stand Assange, but from a legal perspective, his situation is very different from Snowden or Manning. Right now, its just the rape charges that he's facing.

You think that'll stop the United States of 'Merica from bringing democracy to Assange? Trust me, ok? I saw it in a movie once. He'd never make it down the block.

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

This is a passive aggressive attempt to hide your inability to respond to the point, nothing more. If that's where you want to leave the discussion I'm perfectly content that I've made my case.

No, it's an honest response. What you're doing* is trying to get me to address your point, which I guess I can do if you like.

To begin with, you're oddly limiting the range to exclude the pussy-grabbing tape leak, because for some reason wikileaks wouldn't have been interested in that, I guess?

But even then, you're wrong. There have been other document leaks from the Trump campaign. You can decide that these aren't 'damaging' leaks if you like, but that doesn't really signify, since many of the Clinton leaks haven't been damaging either. That's a distinction that usually can't be clearly seen until after the material is leaked.

So the material is there. But we know that. We know there is a wealth of potentially damaging material about Trump. That's not an anticipation of my point or a rebuttal of it. It's a restatement of it. So your point must be, if (say) the Washington Post haven't got it, why criticise wikileaks for not having it?

But the WaPo isn't wikileaks and vice versa. A media outlet should rightly be focused on investigating the candidates but it also has a duty to write and publish stories on the existing public information about them. Media outlets should be actively seeking information in general on both candidates, including but not limited to leaks, and we know from their output that they are. Wikileaks, on the other hand, merely publishes leaks that it gets supplied with (and what it feels like publishing). So far, that's exclusively been stuff about Clinton.

So the issue remains, either wikileaks has info on Trump and isn't publishing it or the people who have that info aren't taking it to wikileaks, while the people who have damaging info on Clinton are. So your argument really isn't the killer counter you're suggesting - in fact it's not really addressing my point at all. Which is why I didn't respond to it in the first place.

 

*I hate the term 'passive-aggressive' because it's meaningless, so I won't use it.

[Ariadne23]

This article, and, really, the links in it, from Daily Kos is helpful. Here's what I can piece together.

Toddandclare, a dating site in contact with Assange for help with a safety tool for women meeting online dates (??), called the KATIA project, alleges that Assange:

Quote

“...sent the 8-year-old juvenile (i) unlawful, indecent images and video media of himself performing lewd sex acts on a mobile camera device, and (ii) unlawful obscenity materials of a child pornographic nature.”

Evidently toddandclare learned about a Bahamian police investigation into Assange after a Canadian family vacationing there reported Assange was soliciting sex acts from their 8 year old online, and filed for breach of contract regarding his involvement as an anti-rape ambassador with the KATIA project in UK court.

In retaliation, they allege, a friend of Assange's at the UN had them delisted from the UN's Global Compact program, effective October 12th. Toddandclare was, as intended, super peeved about that. So they've gone nuclear with the story, posted an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister on Facebook, etc.

It would be reasonable to assume this is all happening now because the delisting just occurred last week. 

In any case, the second allegation, that Assange sent child pornography to the girl, would be harder to excuse on the grounds that he thought it was the 22 year old.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

No, it's an honest response. What you're doing* is trying to get me to address your point, which I guess I can do if you like.

To begin with, you're oddly limiting the range to exclude the pussy-grabbing tape leak, because for some reason wikileaks wouldn't have been interested in that, I guess?

But even then, you're wrong. There have been other document leaks from the Trump campaign. You can decide that these aren't 'damaging' leaks if you like, but that doesn't really signify, since many of the Clinton leaks haven't been damaging either. That's a distinction that usually can't be clearly seen until after the material is leaked.So the material is there. But we know that. We know there is a wealth of potentially damaging material about Trump. That's not an anticipation of my point or a rebuttal of it. It's a restatement of it. So your point must be, if (say) the Washington Post haven't got it, why criticise wikileaks for not having it?

 

Ok, fair enough, you have informed me of two additional media outlets that have obtained Trump campaign leaks that I was unaware of, the Washington Post and the Huffington Post. Yes, my point remains that if the vast majority of other outlets do not have the leaks you assume must exist, why criticize wikileaks for not having it.

But the WaPo isn't wikileaks and vice versa. A media outlet should rightly be focused on investigating the candidates but it also has a duty to write and publish stories on the existing public information about them. Media outlets should be actively seeking information in general on both candidates, including but not limited to leaks, and we know from their output that they are. Wikileaks, on the other hand,

merely publishes leaks that it gets supplied with (and what it feels like publishing). So far, that's exclusively been stuff about Clinton.

Correct. And since this is its sole purview it makes little sense to demand that it cover all candidates equally. It has what it has. We have a handful of leaks now, with the additions you've provided. That these did not go to wikileaks among the panoply of options is meaningless. 

So the issue remains, either wikileaks has info on Trump and isn't publishing it or the people who have that info aren't taking it to wikileaks, while the people who have damaging info on Clinton are. So your argument really isn't the killer counter you're suggesting - in fact it's not really addressing my point at all. Which is why I didn't respond to it in the first place.

No, my point still stands because there are innumerable outlets of which you could say the same- "either [outlet x] has info on Trump and isn't publishing it or the people who have that info aren't taking it to [outlet x]." That's not a mark against these innumerable outlets' ethics.

[Shryke]

47 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Sure is strange that you feel the need to attack my motives like this, but I'm not defending wikileaks/Assange in all things. I'm defending the specific choice to release the DNC/Podesta emails. In fact, I'm far less skeptical of the criminal allegations against Assange than you are. That doesn't delegitimize everything wikileaks has done. The argument that wikileaks ought to have leaked documents on Trump, I've already answered- it's the comment I made that mormont believes is beneath response. Perhaps you believe the same, since you don't address it either.

It's not strange at all. Every time the many examples, like all those BloodRider helpfully posted, of why Wikileaks is untrustworthy are posted, you jump to their defence. Over and over again. Mostly, frankly, because it seems like you like them because they are openly and very obviously attacking Hillary Clinton. But hey, maybe you just like organisations that tweet out bigotry, edit material to suit a political agenda despite frequently pretending to just be a clearing house for leaks and actively endanger the lives of many people. I don't know, your motivations are your own in the end.

But what is obvious is your consistent agenda across many threads of jumping to their defence and ignoring all the reasons people keep posting for why wikileaks, as an organisation, is rather shit.

 

Frankly, anyone should have stopped trusting these chucklefucks like 6 years ago (or whatever it was exactly) after the "Collateral Murder" video release when Colbert, at the very least, got Assange to openly admit that they were an organisation with an explicit political agenda and that they were willing to edit and control the presentation of the materiel they had to meet it.

[Ariadne23]

Okay so a piece of this I missed is that on Oct 11th, toddandclare, as a UN Global Compact member, filed a request with the UN asking them to change their position on Assange, citing harassment of their organization by WikiLeaks, as well as the other known allegations against Assange.

I suppose one could argue that they may have been motivated to do that, at this time, by pro-Clinton sympathies. I guess.

Toddandclare seems more concerned with accusing the UN of being a cash-hungry, corrupt, anti-American organization.

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yeah I find it odd that people are so anti him, seeing as most of the wiki leaks stuff is done with the intention of exposing the fraudulent politicians that are committing real crimes.

No. It's done to expose "potential" fraudulent Democratic politicians. Haven't seen a single hack of a Republican come out of wikileaks. Have you?

Also, lets also point that these are hacked emails. These weren't legally obtained. Someone, likely the Russians given what the US says, hacked into email accounts to steal documentation and then release to the public. They only released stuff from the DNC. And most of it is meaningless. So it's not like they went through all the documentation, found stuff that was fraudulent and posted it. No, they posted EVERYTHING, which includes personal and professional emails, regardless of what is actually in them. This is illegal on every level.

My issue, besides the illegality of everything, is the fact that it brings up issues that aren't necessary for the public to fret over. Take the quid-pro-quo with the FBI/State Department. This is standard between agencies. It is common for a negotiation on the classification of documents because classification is an art, not a science with poorly defined rules. But the media and the public treats this like it's an illegal act even though the State Department, Department of Justice and FBI specifically disagree. Not to mention there is absolutely zero proof Hillary Clinton had anything to do with this.

What this in turn does is drop confidence in those organizations and yet again starts to undermine our democracy. You might find this a good thing, but I don't. Ignorant people should not be making judgments off a fraction of stolen emails without any context or an understanding of the inner workings of the government and what it ultimately leads to is big headlines, partisan fighting and conspiracy theorists clapping themselves on the back for being proven right when it does anything but. Go read the coverage on Infowars or Breitbart. It's dangerous and it's made especially worse by a presidential candidate who's actively saying the election is rigged in the media and at the polling booths. It's irresponsible from wikileaks and at the moment, only benefits Trump/Russians. And for the record, it has been Assange's stated mission to destroy Clinton so lets not act like they aren't biased.

2 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Maybe he doesn't have anything on Trump?

It's widely speculated that the Russian government is behind the hacking of the DNC and now Podesta's e-mail, which they then fed to Wikileaks. Should Wikileaks have refused this material- which, whatever it's source, is exactly the kind of stuff it as an organization loves to expose- and said, "no, we won't release this until you bring us something on Trump as well?"

Right. More likely that the Russians didn't hack the RNC, Trump's campaign managers or Trump because of the numerous connections to him.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said:

did you really ask if Swedish prisons are bad? I'd think if your innocent any prison would be bad.

WCG,

Are Swedish courts such that Assange cannot trust the process to find him not guilty if that is the case?  His hiding in the Eduadoran embassy has all the hallmarks of someone who knows he is guilty and is trying to delay paying the piper.

[Ariadne23]

A couple questions for all of you who aren't sympathetic to Assange: Do you disagree with the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions calling for the British and Swedish governments to end his "deprivation of liberty," allow him to move freely, and grant him the right to seek compensation? If so, does the ruling affect how you feel about the UN?

ETA: I ask because, on the whole, frankly, I don't know what the fuck to think about it all.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

A couple questions for all of you who aren't sympathetic to Assange: Do you disagree with the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions calling for the British and Swedish governments to end his "deprivation of liberty," allow him to move freely, and grant him the right to seek compensation? If so, does the ruling affect how you feel about the UN?

Yes. No.

Assange doesn't get a free pass from the justice system. If he ever leaves or is expelled from diplomatic protection, he'll face his day in court like any other accused individual (although if he can run out the clock on the Swedish statute of limitations on rape, which will be in 2020, I'm not sure if there's any other charges he can face at that point). If he's innocent, a Swedish court will find it so; I'm sure he'll have a fantastic lawyer from some interested party.

And lots of UN groups do lots of dumb things. News at 11.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

So let's get this straight. 

1) There was an ongoing US investigation against Assange and Wikileaks regarding the Chelsea Manning files. (For all we know, it's still ongoing.) If found guilty of espionage or treason he could end up serving the rest of his life in jail, so this much is probably true.

2) There wasn't and still is no request issued for his extradition to the US, neither to Sweden nor to the UK or any other country. Assange thus freely traveled the world, even to countries which do have an extradition agreement with the US.

3) He then famously acted super douchy towards two women and had sex with one of them in her sleep, not wearing a condom, even though that was her explicit demand during their earlier, consensual sex. If this is rape or not can of course be debated (my guess is that he'd be aquitted by a Swedish court or at least sentenced to a very short term).

4) However, we'll never get to know that because he refused to participate in the hearings, citing a fear of being extradited to the US from Sweden if he went there.

5) Now for the part I don't understand. If there's an extradition request from another country, and the country you're currently in grants that, you can get arrested and extradited without committing any crime in that country. So how the hell could he go to Sweden in the first place?