Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kris]

I'm going to assume that if the guy is proven to be a rapist you pro-Assange guys will change your tune.

[jonathan jetter]

Kris wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 10:10

I'm going to assume that if the guy is proven to be a rapist you pro-Assange guys will change your tune.

first of all, his personal conduct has no bearing either way on the rightness or wrongness of what Wikileaks is doing.

second, have you actually seen what he's been charged with? arguably the most absurd definition of "rape" that i've ever seen:   http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-hear t-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444" target="_blank">  http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-hear t-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

"Assange's London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715."

one of the women initially pressing charges may have ceased cooperating with prosecutors:    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-jullian- assange_n_794285.html

[sui-city]

Kris,

Firstly, he has not been charged with rape. So I would appreciate it if sensationalising of the charge was kept to a minimum. And so that we can keep the chest-thumping to a minimum.

Secondly, you will notice in my response to Paul that i do not mention Assange once. I do not idolise him. He is one man within an organisation. And he happens to be the public face of it.

I do however support the need for transparent government. And since government cannot be trusted to be transparent, then there wil be people who are prepared to at least try and show them up for the hypocrits that they are. And they have my support.

So, finally, to answer your question:

No, even if Assange was found guilty of rape, even though that is not what he has been charged with, I would not change my tune.

Because it's not about Assange.

Kris wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 17:10

I'm going to assume that if the guy is proven to be a rapist you pro-Assange guys will change your tune.

[Kris]

Based on a quick skim of the linked article, it seems to me that the only quotes saying he's not being charged with rape are from his lawyers.  Everywhere else it says rape.

I know nothing of Swedish law or how the Swedes define rape, but I have heard the saying that no means no...

Sorry for the involuntary chest thumping!

[Kris]

jonathan jetter wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 10:21

first of all, his personal conduct has no bearing either way on the rightness or wrongness of what Wikileaks is doing.

Agreed.

[Berolzheimer]

I think it's worth remembering who pays for, and (supposedly) on who's behalf, this government is operating.  This government and all it's actions & secrets belong to US, the citizens of the U.S.  I personally maintain a policy of not taking any actions that I wouldn't want other people to know about; I expect my government to behave the same way.  If it has to be kept secret maybe it shouldn't be done.

On the other hand I heard that NPR report too & what that intelligence expert was saying made a lot of sense.  He said "we" classify so much stuff that it's impossible to protect any of it or to sort the important stuff from teh not so important.  He also said that a lot of classifications are just people in the military & intelligence agencies protecting their paychecks, figuring that if the general public knew about the money they're wasting their projects would be shut down.

[sui-city]

Kris,

My apologies. You may be right with the charge.

This may shed some light on it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Ju lian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=f eeds-newsxml

I knew of the Sexual Molestation & Unlawful Coercion.

[Paul Cavins]

I find these cries for openness and transparency to be simplistic and naive (as well as shallow and pedantic*). Do you really think that diplomacy could actually happen in the real world without some bit of duplicity going on?

Have you ever said "No, honey, those jeans do not make your ass look fat"?

Is there any reason to believe that Wikileaks' dumping is at all measured in any way to make a specific point, or is it just vandalism?

We all enjoy the fruits of our advanced modern societies, we depend on the institutions and structures that make our modern life possible. I think we are spoiled by the comforts of this life so much that we lose sight of what holds it up. Our societies are made up of millions of people all with their own ideas and interests. None of this could be held together by we flawed people without some unsightly actions and secrets. It's a crappy aspect of life. There should be as much openness as there can be, but just throwing an info-bomb into  the workings of the world community doesn't seem to serve a good cause.

This Wikileaks support seems to come from some trippy, far out kind of idealism.

As far as controlling the internet goes, my point is that I want an open internet, but if the people of the cyber world don't exercise some SELF control, the great forces of the world will make the internet less open because they are threatened.


*Family Guy reference, fyi.

PC

[DarinK]

Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43

As far as controlling the internet goes, my point is that I want an open internet, but if the people of the cyber world don't exercise some SELF control, the great forces of the world will make the internet less open because they are threatened.

Avoiding exposing the truth because of the fear of consequences is the way of cowards. And I understand that sometimes the cowardly path is necessary for self-preservation.  
If nothing should ever be done that might threaten the "great forces of the world," then that's really saying something.  It reminds me of abuse victims who try to convince themselves that if they can only somehow manage to not anger their abusers, everything will work out okay. But abusers will always find an excuse to abuse, and the great powers of the world are not on the side of the average person.

btw, I really like the fact that Assange does not answer to anyone at all.  I've never been a big fan of authority & obedience.

[Jay Kadis]

Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43

I find these cries for openness and transparency to be simplistic and naive (as well as shallow and pedantic*). Do you really think that diplomacy could actually happen in the real world without some bit of duplicity going on?

And how well is that duplicitous approach working?

Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43

Is there any reason to believe that Wikileaks' dumping is at all measured in any way to make a specific point, or is it just vandalism?

There are redactions in the material where it would endanger specific individuals.  It is being edited.

Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43

We all enjoy the fruits of our advanced modern societies, we depend on the institutions and structures that make our modern life possible. I think we are spoiled by the comforts of this life so much that we lose sight of what holds it up. Our societies are made up of millions of people all with their own ideas and interests. None of this could be held together by we flawed people without some unsightly actions and secrets. It's a crappy aspect of life. There should be as much openness as there can be, but just throwing an info-bomb into  the workings of the world community doesn't seem to serve a good cause.

There is so much duplicity and opaque activity that moneyed special interests are able to conduct clandestine deals about which we know nothing and are obliged to support through our tax dollars.  I would prefer to have more of this in the open - maybe it will wake up those who seem to think our government is acting in our best interest rather than the interests of those who prowl K Street.

[DarinK]

Interesting point in this article that there was never this much outrage when Wikileaks revealed all sorts of nastiness about the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.  Apparently the "powers that be" care much more about hiding diplomatic cables than they do about hiding war crimes:  http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd12072010.html

[Paul Cavins]

Jay, the whole system isn't based on duplicity, yet there is a certain amount in any human society. What alternative vision is there? What great path forward is revealed by the Wiki kids?

One has to be unsatisfied with the system, but reckless tearing-down isn't the answer. There has to be better ways to fight for openness and accountability.


DarinK, another word for someone who doesn't answer to anyone is "despot". No matter how shitty the government is, it is still run by people who need to get elected.

There's always going to be a "system" made up of people. You either work with it to try to change it or try to tear it down. I think we have too much good to lose applaud those who only tear it down.

PC

[DarinK]

Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 14:55

No matter how shitty the government is, it is still run by people who need to get elected.

Yep, and the best chance of electing the best people to government is when the public has access to information beyond only stuff which been selected based on what that government finds acceptable.

That's why Freedom of the Press was so important to the Founding Fathers.

[jetbase]

Paul Cavins wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 09:55

Jay, the whole system isn't based on duplicity, yet there is a certain amount in any human society. What alternative vision is there? What great path forward is revealed by the Wiki kids? One has to be unsatisfied with the system, but reckless tearing-down isn't the answer. There has to be better ways to fight for openness and accountability.

Hey Paul, why do you call them "Wiki kids"? I think you answer your own question regarding what "alternative vision", or "great path forward", is revealed when you mention "openness & accountability". How do you perceive Wikileaks is recklessly tearing down (& what)? From what I understand, which is only info reported by the media, they are leaked info from within the US government & they have made public only a portion of what they recieved. Of course, then that would beg the question who determines what is appropriate to release & how? But ultimately it seems to me that the US government (& I'm definitely NOT anti-US) is working hard to make this all about Wikileaks &, specifically, Julian Assange, and they are avoiding accountability for themselves.

[Jay Kadis]

Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 14:55

Jay, the whole system isn't based on duplicity, yet there is a certain amount in any human society. PC

Did you see the movie "Charlie Wilson's War"?  That is the kind of behavior at the root of what I object to in the actions of the US government vis-a-vis foreign sovereign governments.  It is unfortunate that so many citizens of this country are oblivious to the machinations of ignorant politicians who have engineered the situation we face in Afghanistan.  That is but one example of failure in our approach to foreign policy.

I still think duplicity is bad in the long run, albeit necessary in a very few instances.  It is the rare ability to parse those situations that makes a truly great statesman.  It should certainly not be the cornerstone of American diplomacy.