What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Julian Assange Arrested

This guy has always been scum, the shit he pulled with the Embassy emphasized it, and then there was 2016.

Assange has never believed in freedom of information, else he'd have never cozied up to Putin (incidentally, the same holds true for Edward "I'm gonna hide in Russia and give Putin moral cover" Snowden, albeit to a much lesser degree)
 
Not the guy who kills Journalists.
 
He is a traitor and a hypocrite.
Finally we agree on something.
I'm agreeing with Sarcobite too.

This is a very weird feeling.

Though I'm actually not sure he counts as a traitor - Assange is an Australian citizen, and ASAIK, he didn't release classified Australian info. But he certain was in charge of a hostile intelligence outfit. And he's definitely a raging hypocrite.
 
It's actually entirely popular Trump's recent bellicose rhetoric on Venezuela was to blame here. As I cannot imagine they want a massive US intevention so close to home.
 
But who, then? There isn't really anyone who fits and who wouldn't imprison him.
He cozied up to Putin when he started taking money to do a show on Russian State TV. If he had the courage of his convictions, and he really believed in the freedom of information, he wouldn't have done that.

Ecuador wouldn't imprison him - except that he then proceeded to bite that hand that fed him over and over and over again. Assange made his bed, and there are countries he didn't leak from he could have gone too that wouldn't have extradited him. He was in the UK fine and not being sent to the US before Sweden first went after him, after all. But he still took Putin's money and still defended Putin every chance he got. He claimed the Panama papers were an anti-Putin forgery, for Christ's sake! If he's all about airing the dirty laundry of governments, why not air Russia's...

Oh. Wait.

@Horton: That might be an underlying factor, but he did legitimately piss them off repeatedly - that much is documented, many times. I'm willing to believe they just got sick of his dickery.
 
I am not horribly offended by his whistle-blowing. The system is supposed to be in place to protect people, and it wasn't. There is supposed to be accountability and oversight, and there wasn't. When every means of internal reform is exhausted there is a moral obligation to correct course.

Except that when things got revealed, two things happened. First is that the rest of the system turned on the whistle-blower in rage at their corruptions being exposed, their being very comfortable with an absolute lack of morality and accountability. Second is that the people murmured a little and then rolled over, not caring how fucked over they really are. So no attempts have been made to make the system less corrupt.

That all being said, the man is a terrible fuckhead who has repeatedly shown himself to not be a knight in shining armor but a scumbag and revolutionary who cares only about hurting others while hiding behind an illusion of righteousness.

So, yes, fuck him. But also fuck the corrupt system, and fuck the populace that condones having their freedoms critically compromised. In the end, everyone receives what they have allowed, and when it all starts to unravel there will be few tears shed by me.
 
@Lerticus Fair.

Though, In all honesty, the fact that his leaks got people informing on the Taliban under threat is a little shady, to say the least. Assange was massively irresponsible with how he handled leaking. The idea of something like Wikileaks is a sound one. What Assange turned it into is not.
 
Well, who would he have seen instead? I keep asking you the question and you keep answering to another question.
I don't really *care* who else he would have seen, and that question is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Russia really was the only place he could have gotten money (it wasn't). Unless you're going to start telling me that Russia and Putin are paragons of free press and free information, then it's manifestly obvious a man who claims to care exclusively about those things should not be taking their money and spouting their party line.

I'm not on Assange's side, so I'm not going to do his legwork.

He was doing fine in the UK for two years after he helped Manning release his leaks, he could have stayed there possibly indefinitely. Or he could have not pissed off Ecuador repeatedly. Or gone to other countries in Europe. He had options.

Where else he could have gone is not the issue, because I don't have to provide an answer to that. Assange portrays himself as a man of Principle - Russia violates his principles. If his schtick is that he is a principled man, that his love of freedom of information and his belief in that value is why he did what he did, he violated his principles by taking Russia's money and defending Russia at every opportunity.

Your position is equivalent to sealoining in terms of its contributions to the actual discussion and it's merits - it's like trying to demand that I'm obligated to prove you aren't holding a baseball right now.
 
I don't really *care* who else he would have seen, and that question is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Russia really was the only place he could have gotten money (it wasn't). Unless you're going to start telling me that Russia and Putin are paragons of free press and free information, then it's manifestly obvious a man who claims to care exclusively about those things should not be taking their money and spouting their party line.

I'm not on Assange's side, so I'm not going to do his legwork.

He was doing fine in the UK for two years after he helped Manning release his leaks, he could have stayed there possibly indefinitely. Or he could have not pissed off Ecuador repeatedly. Or gone to other countries in Europe. He had options.

Where else he could have gone is not the issue, because I don't have to provide an answer to that. Assange portrays himself as a man of Principle - Russia violates his principles. If his schtick is that he is a principled man, that his love of freedom of information and his belief in that value is why he did what he did, he violated his principles by taking Russia's money and defending Russia at every opportunity.

Your position is equivalent to sealoining in terms of its contributions to the actual discussion and it's merits - it's like trying to demand that I'm obligated to prove you aren't holding a baseball right now.
Nah, it's more that the standards you claim to hold him up to are inexistant, because even under the assumption that he believed in freedom of information, it's hard to see a "better" choice to achieve his stated goals. Is it a good choice? Nope. Is there any better? It's really unlikely.

At which point the question is whether making a bad choice is better than not making any at all, for such objectives. But your argument doesn't hold any water in its goal of disproving the goals of Assange.
 
Whatever personal failings Assange has are irrelevant in the presence of the vital public service he's done to reveal corruption and criminal behavior in the american government. In a just world he'd be given a metal.

As for Edward Snowden. He's an American Patriot who knowing full well what kind of torture Chelsea Manning was being put through decide to seek refuge in a country that would never stab him in the back because his mear presence there is a massive "fuck you" to the corrupt government seeking to imprison him for exposing their heinous crimes. He also deserves a metal.

End of story.

Daily reminder that if you ever end up agreeing with Sacrobite you may need to reevaluate your life.
 
Whatever personal failings Assange has are irrelevant in the presence of the vital public service he's done to reveal corruption and criminal behavior in the american government. In a just world he'd be given a metal.

As for Edward Snowden. He's an American Patriot who knowing full well what kind of torture Chelsea Manning was being put through decide to seek refuge in a country that would never stab him in the back because his mear presence there is a massive "fuck you" to the corrupt government seeking to imprison him for exposing their heinous crimes. He also deserves a metal.

End of story.

Daily reminder that if you ever end up agreeing with Sacrobite you may need to reevaluate your life.
I won't go all that way either. Assange is likely to have become an influence agent serving other countries and acting on the behalf of political parties in the US, he's far, far from clean IMO.
 
Whatever personal failings Assange has are irrelevant in the presence of the vital public service he's done to reveal corruption and criminal behavior in the american government. In a just world he'd be given a metal.

As for Edward Snowden. He's an American Patriot who knowing full well what kind of torture Chelsea Manning was being put through decide to seek refuge in a country that would never stab him in the back because his mear presence there is a massive "fuck you" to the corrupt government seeking to imprison him for exposing their heinous crimes. He also deserves a metal.

End of story.

Daily reminder that if you ever end up agreeing with Sacrobite you may need to reevaluate your life.
Chelsea wasn't tortured, she was imprisoned. For crimes she absolutely committed.

Assange was negligent and irresponsible with the information he leaked, and has shown little regard for the innocent lives that got swept up and hurt by his leaks. At best, he's a mindless zealot.

Snowden claims to care about freedom of information and Press, and continues to hide in Russia, the place where neither exist. I don't care *why* he's doing it, he's betraying the principles he claims to take so seriously. If High-minded principles are your supposed motivation, you actually have to follow them.
 
Snowden claims to care about freedom of information and Press, and continues to hide in Russia, the place where neither exist. I don't care *why* he's doing it, he's betraying the principles he claims to take so seriously. If High-minded principles are your supposed motivation, you actually have to follow them.
So explain us what would, in your opinion, would have been needed to follow such high-minded principles. Explain us what better options were there. Not "this isn't good", but "that one would have been better".
 
I won't go all that way either. Assange is likely to have become an influence agent serving other countries and acting on the behalf of political parties in the US, so he's far, far from clean.
I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.
 
I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.
No one said otherwise. This isn't a referendum on Whistleblowers.
 
So explain us what would, in your opinion, would have been needed to follow such high-minded principles. Explain us what better options were there. Not "this isn't good", but "that one would have been better".
Moving to a country that doesn't kill journalists and suppress information on a scale like Russia. It's pretty simple. And if he couldn't find a place that was safe to do it, then he should face his accusers in open, public court and defend himself like anyone else. Russia is not and never will be* an acceptable option for someone who tries to claim some sort of freedom of information moral high ground.

*at least until such time as the current Kleptocracy loses power.
 
I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.
Why would that be any different without Assange? Just send it to like 300 different news sources and it'll blow.
 
I respect that. To be clear I don't think Assange is a good guy, but when American soliders are killing journalists in Iraq, laughing about it on vidoe, and that's treated as ok, WE the american peoples NEED TO KNOW.
Of course, but the how, when and where the information is released is also a tool that can be used and was used for ingerence purposes. If that was deliberate on his part, then he is also guilty of hostile actions.
Moving to a country that doesn't kill journalists and suppress information on a scale like Russia. It's pretty simple. And if he couldn't find a place that was safe to do it, then he should face his accusers in open, public court and defend himself like anyone else. Russia is not and never will be* an acceptable option for someone who tries to claim some sort of freedom of information moral high ground.

*at least until such time as the current Kleptocracy loses power.
Ah, but you see, the issue is that pretty much anywhere else where he'd have done it, he'd have been arrested or worse on the behalf of the US government, as most whistleblowers were, and with good chances his info shut down before it could be properly broadcast. So, what is it? Going to see the assholes and be sure your info gets maximum visibility or stay with the theoretically good guys and have a pretty high chance your stuff gets suppressed or quickly ignored after a handful of days/weeks?

For whistleblowing to be an option, one needs to not hammer down their own inconvenient whistleblowers. If you do it, then they go see the opposition who will welcome them and use them against you.
 
Back
Top Bottom