Plus, the very reason that we need wikileaks, whistleblowers, anonymous, and occupiers is down to the reality that there is no such thing as justice anymore. The law is biased, and no longer represents good/honesty, and that a brown envelope trumps justice these days.
what law has he broken? and who's jurisdiction??
Well it seems you want him to face some sort of music, Cate. The music being, ultimate extradition to the US. That is the overall goal here. Letting the Us have their way with him. He is on interpol's opening web-page
if you don't want him on the run, you obviously think he should be locked up somewhere. He IS locked up somewhere, as it happens. you say he should have to face the consequences of his actions, but... he didn't blow the whistle. Manning, and many others did, and they are all either in detention, or being sought out. Why Assange. All he did was set up a website.
what music should he face?
Cate, that is the problem, many people ARE lacking capacity to think for themselves, especially regarding religion, politics, or what they think represents "their flag". bI'm not wary of pointing that out at all, peopel need to wake the hell up to what is happening in the world, and I'm not afraid to offend someone who thinkks that, for instance, "flouride in our water must be a good idea, right... I mean, they put it in there for a reason", or similar mindless conclusions people jump to.
I already said leaks are delicate, with what I said about anonymous cells leaking police dox showing just that.
If you agree that the US is in no position to police the rest of the world.... why exactly do you think Assange should be shipped over there? he commited no crime in the US, and his crimes in Sweeden are "debatable" to say the least, considering he stayed there for about a month to "iron out" details with police, and they did not charge him during that time.
I once saw a youtube clip where a man was asked what he thought of the new indefinite detention bill, and patriot act, in the US, whereby the military can, where they "believe"(without evidence), without warrant, come to your home, trash it, lock you up, and keep you indefinitely, as long as they wish... the guy says "if the president thinks it's a good idea, I'm behind it, he's my man". you really think these people should even be allowed vote?
I didn't suggest that a criminal evading justice should head for the nearest embassy Cate, we're talking about whistleblowing. I also don't think Assange is in the embassy because he's afraid of the pending criminal aspects of his difficulties, I think he's there because he's worried about a spot of rendition from Sweden after the current matter is sorted.
Cate and Zoe, it is a difficult number to call. Cate makes a good point about those who sign on the dotted line and are liable for such actions. I also agree with you Zoe that they are true patriots if their conscience drives them to do it. However, they must do it fully prepared to face the consequences. Despite that, the hackers who do managed by one means or another to get to the heart of the lotus in another country should not be extradited to the USA on their whim. It is the USA's failure to protect their data rather than the act of penetrating a system that should be at issue. Bradley Manning's treatment is less than humane for all of that. The USA should stop preaching democracy and defence of the human rights of others if they are going to treat their own the way they have treated him. Yes, arrest him, lock him up but allow him to have access to lawyers, family, friends, enjoy an open trial and all the things any other lawbreaker is entitled to. What he has done is considerably less damaging than bankers who depart from the boardroom of their former employer with a pay off and are whistling contentedly in the wind. It is the double (or other multiples) standards that are untenable. Assange is a figurehead for all that people are fed up with, except that he has himself become a figure of derision because all that he stood for, or said he stood for, seems to have have been sacrificed to his big and very contradictory ego. What is in the Guardian was already in the public domain from other sources, so no big surprise there, the author was simply a bit more explicit.
OK, now the Ecuadorians, British, Swedes and Americans are all coming out of this looking like lying, incompetent oafs. Assange has shunted them all into that position and perhaps the good that will come of it is that diplomacy will look at itself and say that there are lines to be drawn. Ecuador have an agenda but are a country of little political clout so don't really count for much. The British have allowed that absolute incompetent Hague to start something, the level of which has killed many political careers, so let us hope he is gone soon. Sweden are looking less than their usual efficient selves. Why couldn't Swedish police interview him in the UK, everybody else does it, something smells bad and now they are backed into a corner and can neither admit it nor undo it. The USA is looking foolish because they have been caught bullying again although nobody has actually seen them at it. It is that latter point rather than Assange himself that is the crux of the matter and that must be dealt with by all nations with the explicit message to them that it is over and they will not get away with it any longer.
Cate I guess what I'm saying is that it is not very difficult to make systems hack proof so shame on data owners that have not taken sufficient precautions to avoid being compromised and shame on organisations that do not have sufficient controls and separation of duties in place to avoid mass date leakage through whistleblowing. I do believe that if someone discovers something which they feel is wrong then they should blow the whistle and take refuge if necessary in a foreign embassy regardless of what contracts/acts etc. they might have signed. I think the difficulties associated with bolting to an embassy and being wanted in one's own country should act as sufficient deterrent to people taking this course of action lightly. I doubt I would have the courage that would take. In time of war or national emergency I can understand a need for increased secrecy etc etc. but in times of peace are these secrecy laws misused I wonder?
Cate, when someone dissents, there are generally a small group of supporters, who will follow. That goes for any situation.
The service personnel HAVE the confidentiality clause. Bradley Manning's family had no idea what he was doing, or what he knew, till it was "oficially leaked". Govt, and military DO have the clause in place, to protect both the operative, as well as the friends/families of the operative, in the event of them being compromised.
In what you say to John, Cate, are you suggesting that the person must still hang onto the secret, even if they see great injustice/intentional suffering being caused. People think being patriotic is about blindly applauding whatever the govt decides to be right... I say it is more about questioning when people are put in danger or stripped of their freedoms. When you stand for your countrymen, and not your government/flag, THEN, you are a true patriot. as much as I cannot stand jingoism/patriotism that goes on in the US, I believe whistleblowers are doing the public a service. Even when the public are too blind to notice
The term hacker doesn't even have a meaning anymore I suppose and you're probably right Brian it is people delivering stuff to Wikileaks rather than anything gained through system penetration but this comes back to correctly designed access and control systems with appropriate logs and audit trails. Need to know and all that sort of stuff. If the correct controls are in place it should be pretty straightforward to identify who is leaking what. For example, it seems to me that Bradley Manning (and I guess a lot of other "analysts") had virtually unlimited access to an unbelievable amount of very sensitive stuff. That doesn't seem sensible to me. It doesn't even seem to up to the standards of, say a bank let alone a military organisation. I just wonder why the US hasn't come out and said they have improved their security and access controls and it is now impossible for someone to download a whole raft of sensitive data to a CD and post it off to his mates?
So one pissed off ex-writer goes to a newspaper with a gripe. The importance of keeping some parts under wraps till the right time is crucial.
If all the goods are given up straight away, there is nothing to protect them. wikileaks has always operated under the rule... "allow this to get out, or we will publish even more delicate information.
Most contracts contain a confidentiality clause, I sign two per year, with my regular contracts, plus some extra ones to do with certain groups, or people staying in the hotel.
for an operation such as wikileaks, of course there is a question of discretion. The information they, and anonymous can put out there is extremely sensitive. rogue anons posted names, adresses and phone numbers of corrupt/violent police in the US, and what happens... people go there, and shhot their windows in, slash their tyres, threaten, set fires, and so on. They forget that this bent cop has an innocent wife, and young children. You cannot just throw a rabbit to the foxes and expect them to be humane to it.
Apart from which, reading back over things one should find that Wikileaks depended on people leaking sources or information to them, rather than actually hacking into anything. Toward the end of the article Cate just drew attention to it says the same. That is I think what the USA is about. They want to know sources rather than having any real interest in Assange as a hacker. If he had hacker in his CV all good and fine, except that it may just be an overstatement in terms of what he actually did and what people believe he did. That has always struck me about him over the last couple of years and is exactly why I gave a 'jury still out' view on him at the start of this thread.
I don't think Assange is a hacker. If he had hacked a US Government site (or caused it to be hacked) then the US would really have something on him. I think the stuff WikiLeaks gets is really just hanging around waiting to scooped up. In reality a well protected system is very hard to get into. It's the badly protected ones that are hacked. If you leave your valuables on the front lawn someone is going to nick them. They should still be done for theft of course but my point is that every bit of data or information that has been released must have been insufficiently protected. If it really is life and death stuff then the data owners should protect it accordingly and whoever is in charge of security should also pay a price for failure, like being fired.
I feel Sweden is coming out of this pretty badly as well. Their police and prosecutors seem to have messed up initially and some of their laws seem strange. If I understand correctly he stayed in Sweden for a month after the alleged offences to try and sort matters out. I do believe that his concern is not about the Swedish charges but his potentially being delivered up to the US. Both Sweden and the US could put that issue to bed very easily but maybe their unwillingness to do so says everything.
Hague and fool are synonymous, end of. Motives are all speculation, exploitation limitless and who knows whose agenda is what and why?
I think the reality is Cate that Hague looks like a fool. A low key approach to this would have been more prudent and Hague's threat has escalated matters to a standoff. All Sweden has to do is agree that they will not deliver Assange up to the US (or Brian as you point out route him through the US on his way home).
Whatever one thinks about Assange I believe that there are serious issues in play. I'm far from being a lawyer but it does appear to me that the US approach to extraterritoriality isn't balanced.
It's now become a bit boring. I don't know whether the bit about police swarming all over the embassy was true, fire escapes and all which must also be their sovereign territory so risky... As for the platitudes about supporters who made sure nothing happened, a bit pathetic considering if there really had been anything happening there would have been crowd/riot control in force. I don't think he did much for his public image, nor did his lawyer do anything other than talk. It is an impasse, as always in that situation one side has to give way and since he is surrounded by the UK it looks like sooner or later he must. The international courts he is going to will not give him what he wants whilst the Swedish accusations hand over his head. They might be able to get Sweden to assure them that no deportation to the USA will happen, which paper justice because they only have to lock him up so long, release with a deportation order and put on a flight to Australia via Los Angeles or wherever. If the USA want him so much, they will find a way. That is what should be averted because it will be a show trial for what?
Bit of a damp squib really. I was expecting the Ecuadorian Ambassador to come out and say "Julian Assange has now left the building!" He won't be able to stay there indefinitely, so he hasn't really many cards left to play.
John, interesting link, thanks.... Assange has been wanted for quite some time, even Australia washed their hands of him, so to speak.
Never got to see his statement, James, haven't time tonight, but honestly, I think he should keep his head down. We know, however, he won't, he is like captain Paul Watson, who seems to revel in the face of arrest charges, and interpol stopping him at every turn
Apparently Assange will be speaking in a few minutes https://rt.com/on-air/assange-statement-embassy-ecuador/
I believe that Assange is wanted for questioning about one count of "surprise" sex, two of molistation and one of rape. These charges seem to revolve around whether he broke a condom on purpose with woman "A" and if he had condomless sex with a woman "B" while she was asleep. The link below purports to give the timeline on the events.
In my view the whole thing looks like a complete mess from start to finish. How it came to a standoff outside the embassy in London is beyond me.
Zoe...you are bang on there...well said...