EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: BravoV on August 15, 2012, 07:35:54 am
-
If you're a criminal that did these serious crimes :
- Money transfers for terrorist groups and drug cartels
- Money laundering $250 billion in transactions over 10 years
- Manipulating international key lending rates
Simply put, you will be untouchable and "above" the law if you have the money. :o
Just to vent this out after reading this here >:( -> http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/banks-too-big-to-prosecute/?hpt=hp_c3 (http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/banks-too-big-to-prosecute/?hpt=hp_c3)
-
Julian Assange is a little snitch. I hope they do lock him up. He was the horrible little boy in school who grassed you up to the teacher even when it was nothing to do with him.
I don't see how publicly revealing government secrets is a good thing. You know people with half an interest in something will take the things he revealed and use it to back up their already pretty rigid views on the subject.
People selectively believe things just to confirm what they think is true. If they want to believe something nasty about someone/something/somewhere they will find what they want to hear on wikileaks and confirm their biased view with it. That is all sites like that are used for. They're not used by people to form an unbiased fair opinion on something.
Maybe you should go on wikileaks and find some articles which show bankers were allowed to manipulate LIBOR etc... Do it this way. Convince yourself you're a banker and then look for articles which help you do your job better. You should find them too.
-
hi alphabet boy
-
People are incredibly ignorant and passive, if things aren't extremely bad for them they don't care about anyone else or their future.
Eventually things will hit bottom, propaganda will spark another war, things will change with revolution.
After that hell, people will become passive again, the cycle repeats.
The US has been funding terrorists for 70 years, Americans don't care if they're the bad guys because they won't believe it.
-
Julian Assange is a little snitch. I hope they do lock him up. He was the horrible little boy in school who grassed you up to the teacher even when it was nothing to do with him.
I don't see how publicly revealing government secrets is a good thing. You know people with half an interest in something will take the things he revealed and use it to back up their already pretty rigid views on the subject.
People selectively believe things just to confirm what they think is true. If they want to believe something nasty about someone/something/somewhere they will find what they want to hear on wikileaks and confirm their biased view with it. That is all sites like that are used for. They're not used by people to form an unbiased fair opinion on something.
Maybe you should go on wikileaks and find some articles which show bankers were allowed to manipulate LIBOR etc... Do it this way. Convince yourself you're a banker and then look for articles which help you do your job better. You should find them too.
Ok, this thread was made is not for debating Julian Assange's matter, is just merely a dramatic/eye catching title, yeah, bad choice I guess, my apology.
Prolly I should change the title to "Wish Osama Bin Laden was super rich, then he could just walk free easily ....." how about this sound to you ? ;D
-
Julian Assange is a little snitch. I hope they do lock him up. He was the horrible little boy in school who grassed you up to the teacher even when it was nothing to do with him.
I don't see how publicly revealing government secrets is a good thing. You know people with half an interest in something will take the things he revealed and use it to back up their already pretty rigid views on the subject.
People selectively believe things just to confirm what they think is true. If they want to believe something nasty about someone/something/somewhere they will find what they want to hear on wikileaks and confirm their biased view with it. That is all sites like that are used for. They're not used by people to form an unbiased fair opinion on something.
Maybe you should go on wikileaks and find some articles which show bankers were allowed to manipulate LIBOR etc... Do it this way. Convince yourself you're a banker and then look for articles which help you do your job better. You should find them too.
Ok, this thread was made is not for debating Julian Assange's matter, is just merely a dramatic/eye catching title, yeah, bad choice I guess, my apology.
Prolly I should change the title to "Wish Osama Bin Laden was super rich, then he could just walk free easily ....." how about this sound to you ? ;D
As far as I know,they are!
At least Julian Assange isn't short of a quid--Osama is dead,so it wouldn't help him anyway!
-
The US has been funding terrorists for 70 years, Americans don't care if they're the bad guys because they won't believe it.
"And the UN is where our so-called friends get to stab us in the back
And we pay twenty-two percent of their tab to host our enemies here at home"
-
People are incredibly ignorant and passive, if things aren't extremely bad for them they don't care about anyone else or their future.
Eventually things will hit bottom, propaganda will spark another war, things will change with revolution.
After that hell, people will become passive again, the cycle repeats.
The US has been funding terrorists for 70 years, Americans don't care if they're the bad guys because they won't believe it.
Canada is lucky...they don't have to worry about being called a bad guy because they live like hermits under the protection of the USA. All it takes for evil to win is for good countries to do nothing.
We almost did nothing in WWII while germany exterminated millions of people in a way you can't really even grasp today. Perhaps that taught us that you have to be proactive...
-
wikileaks wasn't his idea he took it for him self the guy has quite a ego
he supposedly has a 'insurance' which he's using for bargaining if he ever got into trouble, something that could effect the west (no idea what it is)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w6vtdGI5EI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w6vtdGI5EI)
-
Osama Bin Laden was super rich. That did stop the bullets. As for Assange , his claim is that he did not rape those women or force himself on them and that the charges are a ruse to get him to Sweden in order to send him to the USA. Quite frankly that is ridiculous if the US wanted him that Badly why have they not asked the British authorities for him after all there is a fast track extradition treaty between the UK and the US.
-
Osama Bin Laden was super rich. That did stop the bullets.
It also helps when your family is best friends with two US Presidents, you have them stay at your family palace, your family has invested in their family's business, your brother was having private breakfast with said ex-president on the morning of 9/11, and they like you so much that they let your entire family leave the country on a private jet whilst everyone else in the country is grounded.
As for Assange , his claim is that he did not rape those women or force himself on them and that the charges are a ruse to get him to Sweden in order to send him to the USA.
That is actually a stated fact by the women themselves, it was consensual.
Assange has never been charged with anything, not a thing. He is not wanted on rape charges, just for simple questioning.
Quite frankly that is ridiculous if the US wanted him that Badly why have they not asked the British authorities for him after all there is a fast track extradition treaty between the UK and the US.
Because the UK is higher profile politics, and whilst the extradition treaty exists, it's supposedly much more complicated legally. Sweden will happily sneak you out the back door with a bag over your head onto a CIA private jet for tying your shoe laces incorrectly.
Dave.
-
We almost did nothing in WWII while germany exterminated millions of people in a way you can't really even grasp today. Perhaps that taught us that you have to be proactive...
We didn't learn anything because we already know the pros and cons of being proactive... the main pro is that many others will live much better lives because of it, and the con is that we, ourselves, will live slightly worse lives because of it... so we choose NOT to be proactive; who gives a crap about someone else's life.
-
We almost did nothing in WWII while germany exterminated millions of people in a way you can't really even grasp today. Perhaps that taught us that you have to be proactive...
We didn't learn anything because we already know the pros and cons of being proactive... the main pro is that many others will live much better lives because of it, and the con is that we, ourselves, will live slightly worse lives because of it... so we choose NOT to be proactive; who gives a crap about someone else's life.
I wish the USA were not proactive. It would be great if we shut down the military and just played isolationist for awhile. I would grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. It would be like a big game of Risk. I would be especially interested in how fast China would grab Taiwan and also what North Korea might do. USA is Rome and it is about 400AD right now. Good times are coming!
-
I hope one day there will be a working alternative for VISA.
They blocked the payments to Wikileaks.
I am forced to still use VISA.
.
-
Assange has never been charged with anything, not a thing. He is not wanted on rape charges, just for simple questioning.
That is allegedly normal Swedish procedure: He will be charged after having been brought in for questioning unless of course he manages to talk himself out of it.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/ (http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/)
-
Canada is lucky...they don't have to worry about being called a bad guy because they live like hermits under the protection of the USA. All it takes for evil to win is for good countries to do nothing.
We almost did nothing in WWII while germany exterminated millions of people in a way you can't really even grasp today. Perhaps that taught us that you have to be proactive...
You don’t know history. Canada declared war days after the UK and France declared war. They were also one of the first countries to join in the fight against the Kaiser in WW1 fighting initially under the crown then after numerous fiascos under Canadian leaderships. The US entered WW1 after the tied had turned and near the end of the conflict. The US entered WW2 only after Pearl harbour they were highly isolationist during the outbreak of WW2. Canadians also fought in Korea my grandfather being one of them after he survived WW2 he still re-upped to fight in Korea.
I meant after WWII. USA was late getting into WWII...we were back then more like the world would like us now...staying mostly out of other people's business.
In terms of deaths related to population, USA and Canada both lost about the same %...just under 0.5%.
-
We almost did nothing in WWII while germany exterminated millions of people in a way you can't really even grasp today.
For those interesting WWII and computers, I can recommend IBM and the Holocaust.
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ (http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/)
It's a heavy massively researched read, but worth it.
Yes, it's non-fiction, IBM helped the Germans count and sort the jews. Thomas Watson got a German medal for it.
Dave.
-
Good times are coming!
Not when the US financial system finally collapses, making the GFC and bank bailout look like chump change. It could get a tad messy!
But don't worry, you'll all be safe front riots with the DHS having 1B+ rounds of ammo in stock, and all those domestic surveillance drones and checkpoints! ;D
Dave.
-
Good times are coming!
Not when the US financial system finally collapses, making the GFC and bank bailout look like chump change. It could get a tad messy!
But don't worry, you'll all be safe front riots with the DHS having 1B+ rounds of ammo in stock, and all those domestic surveillance drones and checkpoints! ;D
Dave.
I was being sarcastic when I said good times were coming for the USA.
But anyway, We will be in Alaska by then...be hard to find me with a population in the back country of 1 person per 10 square miles or something.
-
That is allegedly normal Swedish procedure: He will be charged after having been brought in for questioning unless of course he manages to talk himself out of it.
They had ample opportunity to interview him in the UK directly, or via phone, of which their law provides the facility for this and there is an EU agreement for it.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2748 (http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2748)
They have refused this every time. Why? Clearly because:
a) They know they won't be able to press charges, or if they do they won't stick.
and
b) Assange is a global political pawn, with pressure from VERY high places.
It's a total crock.
Dave.
-
I was being sarcastic when I said good times were coming for the USA.
But anyway, We will be in Alaska by then...be hard to find me with a population in the back country of 1 person per 10 square miles or something.
0.5/sqm it seems.
Come to Australia. 6 times more density, but still only a paltry 3 people per sqm, the weather is better, and we don't have Sarah Pallin :D
Dave.
-
I was being sarcastic when I said good times were coming for the USA.
But anyway, We will be in Alaska by then...be hard to find me with a population in the back country of 1 person per 10 square miles or something.
0.5/sqm it seems.
Come to Australia. 6 times more density, but still only a paltry 3 people per sqm, the weather is better, and we don't have Sarah Pallin :D
Dave.
I would *love* to move to Australia, but don't you guys have a very strict immigration policy? (or maybe I am thinking of New Zealand's policy).
-
We really have no need for aggressive foreign policy like the US we have an abundance of oil and natural resources. The only time we wind up drawing attention to ourselves from crazy islamist is when we ally ourselves with the US.
This is my point. Canada has no need for aggressive foreign policy because they have an abundance of oil and natural resources. Live and let die.
Maybe if the USA adopted the same policy, the world would be a much better place. It would be an interesting experiment. Would every country then just happily get along with its neighbor? Who knows. It is possible that without the "world police" (a thankless job most americans would be glad to quit) we could have a situation like Somalia on a much larger scale. Or everyone may just get along.
-
We really have no need for aggressive foreign policy like the US we have an abundance of oil and natural resources. The only time we wind up drawing attention to ourselves from crazy islamist is when we ally ourselves with the US.
This is my point. Canada has no need for aggressive foreign policy because they have an abundance of oil and natural resources. Live and let die.
Maybe if the USA adopted the same policy, the world would be a much better place. It would be an interesting experiment. Would every country then just happily get along with its neighbor? Who knows. It is possible that without the "world police" (a thankless job most americans would be glad to quit) we could have a situation like Somalia on a much larger scale. Or everyone may just get along.
My point was you police when it is in the US’s interest to police, so spare me the noble cop BS. There are all sorts of genocidel conflicts around the globe but they aren’t in the US interest to get involved so they don’t.
That’s not to say the US is any different then any other Country. All countries act in there own self intrest.It just annoys me when some yank spouts crap like you are.
I don't think there was a lot of crap spouting. The USA spends way too much on foreign policy, including wars and I do not think we really get any positive recognition for it. I am suggesting the USA cut back on foreign policy spending.
edit: USA spends 4.7% of GDP on military, Canada spends 1.4% of GDP, UK 2.6%, Australia 1.8%
-
I would *love* to move to Australia, but don't you guys have a very strict immigration policy? (or maybe I am thinking of New Zealand's policy).
Australia is basically a country of immigrants!
We have a very large skilled immigration policy.
Well over a million in the last decade, and over 150K/year total currently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia)
Harder to get in if you aren't skilled.
Dave.
-
I don't think there was a lot of crap spouting. The USA spends way too much on foreign policy, including wars and I do not think we really get any positive recognition for it. I am suggesting the USA cut back on foreign policy spending.
edit: USA spends 4.7% of GDP on military, Canada spends 1.4% of GDP, UK 2.6%, Australia 1.8%
The US military is deployed in over 150 countries around the world. More I believe than every other country combined.
And again, spends almost as much as the entire world combined as well.
(http://infinityiitd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/military_spending_us_vs_world.gif)
And that very likely doesn't include all the money that just conveniently gets "lost". Like the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon couldn't account for.
Note the date: September 10th 2001:
Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon 1 DAY before 911 (Conspiracies) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo#)
Dave.
-
But I do agree we should spend more on our military not for the reasons you think though, mainly to protect our interest off our shores and in the arctic.
We can do the same. How about a nice little arms race around Hans Ø for starters and then later progressively closer to 90 degrees north when global heating makes it more feasible? That would be something.
Jokes aside, I share your view on the hypocrisy in phrasing real-politik and national interest as doing the world a favor. There is often an overlap for some of us, but that is just incidental.
-
I would *love* to move to Australia, but don't you guys have a very strict immigration policy? (or maybe I am thinking of New Zealand's policy).
Do yourself a favour: Don't come by boat, or you will be sent straight to an off-shore concentration camp; to some island with questionable human rights policies.
-
South Africa is open to all, and if you are a farmer and want land and a 99 year lease go to Moz, Zambia.
-
South Africa is open to all, and if you are a farmer and want land and a 99 year lease go to Moz, Zambia.
Nah, I will stick with Alaska. They actually pay you to live there (but not much really). I like the cooler weather....I grew up in the deep south but I can't handle 105 degree days anymore.
-
UK police descend on Assange's embassy refuge (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/uk-police-descend-on-assanges-embassy-refuge-20120816-249pe.html)
-
Yes, there could be some very nasty precedents set in the Assange case.
If the UK sends in its police to "extract" Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy then they have broken one of the cornerstones of the international diplomatic system.
In effect, this becomes an armed invasion of Ecuador - a declaration of war.
Now while I doubt that Ecuador has any credible military force of its own, and certainly none capable of travelling all the way to the UK to defend their "territory" -- the UK (like the USA and because of their lap-dog status with the USA) already has enough enemies.
The last thing the UK wants to do is give terrorists *another* reason to target that nation and its people.
Of course that would play right into the USA's hands and they'd be bound to say "see, we told you the war against terror is far from over and it's obvious that Assange was in bed with these terrorists who have now attacked the UK".
It's a complete and utter farce and the USA is really getting far too big for its boots and for the safety of the world.
Sooner or later (I'm picking a lot sooner than someone thinks), the USA is going to get a real slapping. There are a growing number of nations developing nuclear capabilities (and some, like China who already have it).
If they piss the wrong people off for long enough, they *will* find themselves facing an attack that makes 9/11 look like a children's tea-party.
When you're trying to tame an angry dog you do not:
1. keep poking it with a sharp stick
2. back it into a corner
Unfortunately the USA seem to be as thick as two short planks in this regard -- but I have an awful feeling that they will soon learn the error of their ways.
I just feel sorry for the innocent souls who will pay the price for the politicians stupidity.
-
UK police descend on Assange's embassy refuge (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/uk-police-descend-on-assanges-embassy-refuge-20120816-249pe.html)
A live stream is here:
occupynewsnetwork (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork#)
Dave.
-
Yes, there could be some very nasty precedents set in the Assange case.
If the UK sends in its police to "extract" Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy then they have broken one of the cornerstones of the international diplomatic system.
Even they are not stupid enough to do that.
There is a clause in the law that allows them to strip the embassy of it's diplomatic status for "National Security" reasons (which can of course mean anything).
They will do that first and then move in.
It will be unprecedented and will be the biggest diplomatic incident for many decades.
Rumor has it that Assange has escaped in disguise as a pizza delivery dude. Switched clothes, donned the helmet and rode off on the bike!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be true!
I'd love to see the UK government humiliated if he has escaped.
Dave.
-
^ That would be ace.
I was actually thinking, he was in there for like 2 months... plenty of time to sneak out. Would be really funny to find out that he left the country 6 weeks ago.
-
I was actually thinking, he was in there for like 2 months... plenty of time to sneak out. Would be really funny to find out that he left the country 6 weeks ago.
That would have been the smartest move. Any good magician could advise on the misdirection required.
Would probably be fairly trivial.
I would love it if at the press conference 1pm UK time today, that Assange appeared beside the Ecuadorian president on stage in the main capitol. That would be event of biblicly humorous proportions!
Dave.
-
<running to get the pop-corn> ... rooting for the home team !!
-
The worst thing about the whole episode is that it has, yet again, provided another excuse for Bob Carr to exude his incessant nothingness! #Dribbler
-
Quite frankly that is ridiculous if the US wanted him that Badly why have they not asked the British authorities for him after all there is a fast track extradition treaty between the UK and the US.
Because the UK is higher profile politics, and whilst the extradition treaty exists, it's supposedly much more complicated legally. Sweden will happily sneak you out the back door with a bag over your head onto a CIA private jet for tying your shoe laces incorrectly.
Dave.
[/quote]
Yes there is a lot of legal loop holes to extradite some one to the USA but there are even more to get some one extradited to Sweden which is why it is dragging on so long, so I still say that if the USA wanted him that Badly they would issue extradition requests to what ever country he landed in, they Could also have quietly asked the UK to send him back to Australia as a non desirable, the UK has also in the past bundled people into CIA planes, I have seen CIA planes land in the UK I used to live 150 meters from the boundary of a forward NATO air base here in Norfolk UK I could see all the coming and goings and saw unmarked Lear jets landing and taking off. I was so close I could hear the reverse thrust motors whine when the planes landed, not the turbine noise but the air motor that worked the reverse thrust flaps, very often I would hear the airmen talking to each other.
-
Yes, there could be some very nasty precedents set in the Assange case.
If the UK sends in its police to "extract" Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy then they have broken one of the cornerstones of the international diplomatic system.
In effect, this becomes an armed invasion of Ecuador - a declaration of war.
Now while I doubt that Ecuador has any credible military force of its own, and certainly none capable of travelling all the way to the UK to defend their "territory" -- the UK (like the USA and because of their lap-dog status with the USA) already has enough enemies.
The last thing the UK wants to do is give terrorists *another* reason to target that nation and its people.
Of course that would play right into the USA's hands and they'd be bound to say "see, we told you the war against terror is far from over and it's obvious that Assange was in bed with these terrorists who have now attacked the UK".
It's a complete and utter farce and the USA is really getting far too big for its boots and for the safety of the world.
Sooner or later (I'm picking a lot sooner than someone thinks), the USA is going to get a real slapping. There are a growing number of nations developing nuclear capabilities (and some, like China who already have it).
If they piss the wrong people off for long enough, they *will* find themselves facing an attack that makes 9/11 look like a children's tea-party.
When you're trying to tame an angry dog you do not:
1. keep poking it with a sharp stick
2. back it into a corner *
Unfortunately the USA seem to be as thick as two short planks in this regard -- but I have an awful feeling that they will soon learn the error of their ways.
I just feel sorry for the innocent souls who will pay the price for the politicians stupidity.
*
If you're a grizzly bear,you don't give a stuff about angry dogs!
The fact is,the USA is the only remaining superpower.
Back in the day,both the USA & the USSR threw their weight round in a most unseemly manner.
As well as that,both of them sponsored despotic regimes who "were on their side".
Dear old Saddam Hussein was a "bastion of democracy" for a while.
Col Ghadaffi's Libya was a friendly nation to the USSR.
Indeed,the Yanks may not have "learnt their lesson",but they are so powerful that even economic collapse will not change that!
Mao Tse Tung said "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun!",& he was pretty right!
Look for instance at the old USSR.They were probably nearly bankrupt for years before the collapse,but people still did business with them,in the assumption that their military might was backed up by a strong economy.
-
The fact is,the USA is the only remaining superpower.
Heard of China? Checked out the size capabilities of their military any time in the last decade? Want to run those human rights comparisons again?
Personally I think we should offer Bob Carr for Assange in a hostage exchange deal at the earliest possible time. Given his skills at pissing off Americans, Assange could immediately continue the current operations of the foreign ministry.
-
Who the hell is Bob Carr ? ???
-
Who the hell is Bob Carr ? ???
Exactly! Carr is a practising unelected economic and cultural vandal employed by Julia to do Kevin's Job after Julia took Kevin's other job. Carr would be a popular offering from Australia for any impending Idiot Exchange Program.
-
Who the hell is Bob Carr ? ???
An Australian politician.
-
Exactly! Carr is a practising unelected economic and cultural vandal employed by Julia to do Kevin's Job after Julia took Kevin's other job. Carr would be a popular offering from Australia for any impending Idiot Exchange Program.
One of course who would always take a back seat to the master, Tony Abbot.
Shit Tony Abbott Says (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVP2gvC32U#ws)
Dave.
-
to the master, Tony Abbot.
That's Australia's 28th Prime Minister you're talking about there! :) Even most of the lefties will be voting for him. ;) :D :D
-
UK 'would refuse Assange safe passage out of London'.
http://news.yahoo.com/ecuador-decide-assange-asylum-thursday-minister-213502579.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ecuador-decide-assange-asylum-thursday-minister-213502579.html)
Long live the Queen! NOT!
Alexander.
-
That's Australia's 28th Prime Minister you're talking about there! :) Even most of the lefties will be voting for him. ;) :D :D
Unfortunately you may be right >:(
It'll be own George Bush era. Embarrassingly stupid, but at least without the war warmongering.
Well, maybe a war on atheism and gays...
Dave.
-
Well, he's been granted asylum as everyone predicted.
The Ecuadorian's are possibly the only country left in the world with the balls to stand up to the US.
Their press conference was interesting, what I caught of it in English. They really stuck it to everyone.
And this pretty much sums it all up:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/)
Dave.
-
Exactly! Carr is a practising unelected economic and cultural vandal employed by Julia to do Kevin's Job after Julia took Kevin's other job. Carr would be a popular offering from Australia for any impending Idiot Exchange Program.
One of course who would always take a back seat to the master, Tony Abbot.
Shit Tony Abbott Says (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVP2gvC32U#ws)
Dave.
But then again,Tony has the biggest ears since Billy McMahon,so he already has fulfilled the number one criterion for Australian PMs-----That they be funny--looking! ;D
Of course there were a few that didn't make it,who fitted that criterion,such as "Black Jack McKewen",& Tom Uren! ;D
-
Going back to the original comments,though,(& this is pure prejudice),I find it hard to see Julian Assange as a badly done by martyr.
The smarmy,smug look he always has on his face makes it hard to warm to him!
-
Well, he's been granted asylum as everyone predicted.
The Ecuadorian's are possibly the only country left in the world with the balls to stand up to the US.
Their press conference was interesting, what I caught of it in English. They really stuck it to everyone.
And this pretty much sums it all up:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/)
Dave.
Damn ... the lucky Chinese are harvesting the fruit, aren't they ? :P
I'd imagine someday a Chinese diplomat will be shouting "Stop this humanitarian crap will ya ? You "dirts" are not even in the same league to sit & discuss with us anymore !" in a diplomatic "session" with US, UK, Sweden or Oz clowns governments . LOL ... ;D
Not sure if US & it's puppies are aware that the tide "tsunami" (pronounce it with chinese accent) is coming ........
-
Bear beats a dog, but a pack of small dogs will bring it down.
-
Bear beats a dog, but a pack of small dogs will bring it down.
Who knows, if the big bear treated the baby bears badly enough and starved them for a very long time, there is a possibility that the pack of disgruntled baby bears them self will do it instead of the dogs, pretty scary and eerie scene indeed. :o
-
As for Assange , his claim is that he did not rape those women or force himself on them and that the charges are a ruse to get him to Sweden in order to send him to the USA.
That is actually a stated fact by the women themselves, it was consensual.
Assange has never been charged with anything, not a thing. He is not wanted on rape charges, just for simple questioning.
As usual, there's probably more going on behind the scenes that the rest of us aren't privy to. The lawyer for the two women involved has been quoted as saying
It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture if sent back to one's country of origin. It's not about that here. He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or the death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd.
If the two women are saying it was consensual, then why is their lawyer saying Assange should be brought to justice in Sweden?
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--DJ has stated:
"It also helps when your family is best friends with two US Presidents, you have them stay at your family palace, your family has invested in their family's business, your brother was having private breakfast with said ex-president on the morning of 9/11, and they like you so much that they let your entire family leave the country on a private jet whilst everyone else in the country is grounded."
--Of course if you believe that all of the Bushes were complicit in 911, and that therefore the invasion of Afghanistan, and the destruction of the caves at Tora Bora was not really an attempt to get OBL, but an elaborate farce to cover murderous and pointless warmongering, plain and simple, then your statement makes sense. In fact not all of the BL family are terrorists, and if fact they did not "leave the country on a private jet whilst everyone else in the country is grounded." This is an oft repeated lie by Michael Moore, see below quote from the 911 Comission Report:
"During the morning of September 11, the FAA suspended all non emergency air activity in the national airspace. While the national airspace was closed, decisions to allow aircraft to fly were made by the FAA working with the Department of Defense, Department of State, U.S. Secret Service, and the FBI. The Department of Transportation reopened the national airspace to U.S. carriers effective 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 2001, for flights out of or into airports that had implemented the FAA's new security requirements.
After the airspace reopened, nine chartered flights with 160 people, mostly Saudi nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. In addition, one Saudi government flight, containing the Saudi deputy defense minister and other members of an official Saudi delegation, departed Newark Airport on September 14. Every airport involved in these Saudi flights was open when the flight departed, and no inappropriate actions were taken to allow those flights to depart.
Another particular allegation is that a flight carrying Saudi nationals from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, was allowed to fly while airspace was closed, with special approval by senior U.S. government officials. On September 13, Tampa police brought three young Saudis they were protecting on an off-duty security detail to the airport so they could get on a plane to Lexington. Tampa police arranged for two more private investigators to provide security on the flight. They boarded a chartered Learjet. The plane took off at 4:37 P.M., after national airspace was open, more than five hours after the Tampa airport had reopened, and after other flights had arrived at and departed from that airport. The three Saudi nationals debarked from the plane and were met by local police. Their private security guards were paid. and the police then escorted the three Saudi passengers to a hotel where they joined relatives already in Lexington. The FBI is alleged to have had no record of the flight and denied that it occurred, hence contributing to the story of a "phantom flight." This is another misunderstanding. The FBI was initially misinformed about how the Saudis got to Lexington by a local police officer in Lexington who did not have firsthand knowledge of the matter. The Bureau subsequently learned about the flight.
These flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. Screening of this flight was directed by an FBI agent in the Baltimore Field Office who was also a pilot ... The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level inter-agency processes. Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity."
--Now, while it is acknowledged that some members of the BL family are business acquaintances of the Bushes, I do not think anyone takes seriously the notion that the two families are "best friends."
--Mr. Assange formerly had his own TV program on "Russia Today" under the auspices of fellow "Openness Advocate" Vladimir Putin, under whose reign many journalists have disappeared with out a trace, and whose enemies have developed mysterious cases of poisoning, including radiation poisoning from Polonium. Now, Mr. Assange has obtained asylum in a country run by a fellow who is reputed to be a front man for the drug cartels. No word yet on whether Mr. Assange's friends who put up his bail in good faith will be getting their money back, but it does not seem likely. Oh well, Mr. Assange still hates the USA, and that's the important thing.
“Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."
H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Going back to the original comments,though,(& this is pure prejudice),I find it hard to see Julian Assange as a badly done by martyr.
The smarmy,smug look he always has on his face makes it hard to warm to him!
I think it's unreasonable to judge anyone on the "smugness of their look" -- if that were the case I suspect we'd be lining an awful lot of politicians up and shooting them.
The real issue here is that we appear to (yet again) have another abuse of the legal system -- and yet again (as with the Dotcom saga), the USA is busy pulling strings and leveraging its "might" to usurp natural justice and in some cases, even due process and legal rights.
If the "smug look" test applies then I find the USA guilty of gross abuse of the rights of the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong -- I have many US friends who I consider to be wonderful people.
However, you know, right from the moment you get off the plane at LAX and are greeted with "threats" rather than a "welcome to the USA" -- that the administration of that country is sorely rooted.
The US people deserve a lot better than the government(s) they have. The best way for them to *win* the war against terror would be for the USA to stop pissing on everyone else's doorstep.
Look after your own problems before you start imposing your miight and influence on the citizens of other nations.
-
Well, according to el Reg, he has been granted asylum.
-
Unfortunately you may be right
You know I am right! I'm always right!
It'll be own George Bush era.
Actually it'll be another John Howard era. A lengthy era of solid stable and often boring governance. They'll need a few years recharging the coffers before we have the spare billions necessary for another wasteful Kevin07 socialist experiment.
-
But then again,Tony has the biggest ears since Billy McMahon
Which mandates he avoids sitting on swivel chairs, near open windows on windy days, nothing too much to worry about. Speaking of funny ears your Miss Julia must have had an earlobe transplant with a Spock fan. And a surgical mishap that resulted in those being attached upside down.
-
The smarmy,smug look he always has on his face makes it hard to warm to him!
If smug, smarmy looks were illegal most politicians, journalists and Apple Fan-boys would need indefinite imprisonment.
-
Bear beats a dog, but a pack of small dogs will bring it down.
Are they sending a pack of small dogs into the Ecuadorian embassy? Who found they had a guard bear? ;)
-
Well, according to el Reg, he has been granted asylum.
Asylum and free egress across the entire expanse of the Embassy grounds. It's a freedom much like that of Hutt River Province. Free to live by their own law without prejudice as long as it complies with Aus law and taxation obligations are met.
-
If the two women are saying it was consensual, then why is their lawyer saying Assange should be brought to justice in Sweden?
Because she has an agenda.
http://www.indymedia.org.au/2010/12/08/assange-prosecutor-%E2%80%9Clock-the-men-up-anyway%E2%80%9D (http://www.indymedia.org.au/2010/12/08/assange-prosecutor-%E2%80%9Clock-the-men-up-anyway%E2%80%9D)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-prosecutor-is-antimen-2206650.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-prosecutor-is-antimen-2206650.html)
Dave.
-
Well, according to el Reg, he has been granted asylum.
Asylum and free egress across the entire expanse of the Embassy grounds. It's a freedom much like that of Hutt River Province. Free to live by their own law without prejudice as long as it complies with Aus law and taxation obligations are met.
Theres talk of smuggling him out in an oversized diplomatic pouch...
-
But then again,Tony has the biggest ears since Billy McMahon
Which mandates he avoids sitting on swivel chairs, near open windows on windy days, nothing too much to worry about. Speaking of funny ears your Miss Julia must have had an earlobe transplant with a Spock fan. And a surgical mishap that resulted in those being attached upside down.
I rest my case!
-
What I find note-able in this issue is that the other co founders of Wiki-Leaks have distanced themselves from Assange and that there would appear to be no move against them by the US. If the prosecutor is just overzealous the court would throw the case out.
-
the plot thickens
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/17/1841238/cables-show-us-seeks-assange (http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/17/1841238/cables-show-us-seeks-assange)
-
Theres talk of smuggling him out in an oversized diplomatic pouch...
From news reports out of Britain today:
'If a man-shaped diplomatic bag is seen emerging from the Ecuadorian Embassy and we prod it with pitchfork to confirm that it only contains diplomatic items, a squeak of ''Ouch!'' would give us all the legal options we needed to ask the Embassy yo undo it and show us who or what is therein,' former British Ambassador Charles Crawford said
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189749/Threadbare-room-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-Julian-Assange-hiding.html#ixzz23qq5qBPv (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189749/Threadbare-room-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-Julian-Assange-hiding.html#ixzz23qq5qBPv)
-
The smarmy,smug look he always has on his face makes it hard to warm to him!
If smug, smarmy looks were illegal most politicians, journalists and Apple Fan-boys would need indefinite imprisonment.
Sounds like a good idea! ;D
-
Theres talk of smuggling him out in an oversized diplomatic pouch...
Rumours of the construction of a Trojan Andean Condor have begun surfacing, as large deliveries of feathers, glue and muslin cloth have recently been seen arriving at the embassy.
-
I have rarely been more of two minds than I am about Assange and WikiLeaks.
On the one hand, I am a big advocate of the whole "information wants to be free" school of thought, and think that openness and transparency tend to be very good things for a democracy.
But on the other, think that WikiLeaks and Assange were highly irresponsible in how they shotgunned big wads of raw communications out there for all to see. Selective releases of stuff that is morally questionable is one thing, but blasting out every bit of gossip that the US State Department ever shared amongst themselves about every world leader is not constructive, not for the US and not for the world.
Perhaps a little more restraint was called for...
-
Some interesting insight into Ecuadorian authorities being a champion of human rights.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/fickle-clickers-like-any-old-target-20120818-24f0r.html (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/fickle-clickers-like-any-old-target-20120818-24f0r.html)
(yes it is the right link. Read through to the end)
-
If Wikileaks is dedicated to free information, and Wikileaks starts censoring themselves, doesn't that defy their own mission?
Wikileaks provides valuable service. It's like network security: security through obscurity is not security. If state dept secrets are being leaked, the state dept needs to plug those holes.
-
I recall the very sage advice my mother gave me when I was just a little fella:
Never say anything behind someone's back that you're not prepared to say to their face.
It's served me well (although it has created a few enemies because some people don't like my forthright opinions) -- it's a shame that the USA and others don't follow the same simple rule -- then nothing Wikileaks published ought to bother them -- unless they're doing something they ought to be a shamed of (which so often, seems to be exactly the case).
What is it that we're so often told when we are forced (under threat of imprisonment) to surrender yet another freedom by "the powers that be" in the name of national security and the "War against Terror"...???
Oh, that's right "Only those with something to hide have anything to fear".
It's obvious that the word "hypocrisy" has been expunged from the dictionaries used by our politicians.
-
Well, there goes the pizza guy theory. Bummer.
-
id say this, all too often governments justify silly intrusive laws that infringe on our liberties
they justify it by saying 'if you have done nothing wrong what do you have to worry about' simplistic, flawed i know
The argument that "Only if you're doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don't deserve to keep it private," stems from faulty assumptions about privacy and its value, writes Daniel Solove in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Privacy can't be reduced to one simple idea, and people, courts and legislators often have trouble acknowledging certain privacy problems because they don't fit into a "one-size-fits-all ," Solove writes. The "nothing to hide" argument assumes that privacy is about hiding bad things, without taking into consideration the freedoms privacy infringements erode, such as free speech and association. "In the end, the nothing to hide argument...has nothing to say
but ill turn there bull shit around to them
if they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about
here some footage from out side the embassy from a reformed banker who now promotes free speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MnQNub6h8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MnQNub6h8)
-
Here's a good read that addresses the simpletons statement "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide"
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--Now, Poptones has said and I quote:
"If Wikileaks is dedicated to free information, and Wikileaks starts censoring themselves, doesn't that defy their own mission? Wikileaks provides valuable service. It's like network security: security through obscurity is not security. If state dept secrets are being leaked, the state dept needs to plug those holes."
--I take the point. Poptones is correct that revealing the leaks was a service. However, revealing the names of "undercover Muslim" sources in Afghanistan who were trying to prevent Taliban Jehadis from the wholesale slaughter of Afgani girls, who committed the unpardonable sin "according to the Taliban Elders" of trying to obtain literacy, is just "collateral damage", and is really Bush's fault for intervening. Do I have that right? The fact that these "joes" were subsequently subject to real torture (I.E. not water boarding, caterpillars and nutrition drinks), but the most painful torture to the death, imaginable, is not the fault of the Jehadis who performed them, but Bush, who made the Taliban Jihadis angry.
--I mean after all if Wikileaks redacted two or three words from one or two cables out of 250 thousand USA State Department cables in order to protect some despicable Taliban turncoat who is working for the hated "Bush" it would completely undo Wikileaks stand against censorship, that is, if I understand the thrust of Poptones argument. Ralph Waldo Emerson said something about "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
--Seems to me more likely that Assange, being confronted with 250 some thousand State Department Emails that might be confiscated at any moment, chose to publish them and, if that resulted in the death of innocents, well then that was just tough titty.
--Once again I must thank DJ. He and I often disagree, but I am not subject to censorship merely for my minority opinion.
"Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast."
Chief Dan George 1899 1981
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--RCMR has stated and I quote:
"I recall the very sage advice my mother gave me when I was just a little fella:
Never say anything behind someone's back that you're not prepared to say to their face.
It's served me well (although it has created a few enemies because some people don't like my forthright opinions) -- it's a shame that the USA and others don't follow the same simple rule -- then nothing Wikileaks published ought to bother them -- unless they're doing something they ought to be a shamed of (which so often, seems to be exactly the case).
What is it that we're so often told when we are forced (under threat of imprisonment) to surrender yet another freedom by "the powers that be" in the name of national security and the "War against Terror"...???
Oh, that's right "Only those with something to hide have anything to fear".
It's obvious that the word "hypocrisy" has been expunged from the dictionaries used by our politicians."
--While I must agree with the sentiment, expressed by RCMR of opposing the further growth of government power against the individual as shown (in my opinion) by government efforts to maintain dossiers on native citizens and further efforts to prevent ownership of firearms by the law abiding public, I must disagree with the notion that governments never have a legitimate need for secrecy. To my mind this is a silly and naive statement. Virtually everybody maintains privacy of their conversations and communications. Because they are doing things wrong? Don't be stupid. While it is no doubt laudable that RCMR lays claim to standards of Honesty, Forthrightness and (may I add ) Humility that would make George Washington blush, I should point out that we have only RCMR's word for these vaunted virtues, and that, the contention, that he has never said anything he does not want repeated is open to dispute. I myself, have both good and bad reasons for keeping my conversations private, and if you invade my privacy, or the privacy of anyone under my protection, you do so at you own peril.
"I don't know what the term is in Austrian ..."
Barack Obama 1961 -
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
On these issues I agree with Sgt Rock. There is no justification of publishing government documents for the sheer sake of publication, If you go by the standard that every thing should be in the public domain you had best put your tax returns on the forum along with your bank details. The only time that there is justification of bringing private information into the open for public perusal is when there is patent wrong doing either by a private individual, an official or member of the representative. or government department. To just garner documents to publish for the sake of publishing or self glory is both reprehensible and criminal.
-
... The only time that there is justification of bringing private information into the open for public perusal is when there is patent wrong doing either by a private individual, an official or member of the representative. or government department ....
Not taking sides here : how do you propose we find "these" people ??? Wait for them to fess up ? Wait for someone to occidentally "see" a private
document ? Appoint a fair and honest independent adjudicator ? Rely on whistle blowers ? Oh wait, disclosing a serious breach that you come
across, doing YOUR job, is regarded as "treason" and you end up an outcast. Isn't this the mess we're in now ? So I ask, how do we find these people ??
-
It's rather a point of limits: if I am dedicated to the free release of otherwise "secret" government or corporate information, and you come to me with some of this "secret" information, where do I draw the line? Do I say I won't release this infromation from Russia because I support Putin's line in the sand against invasions of western ideals? Do I say I won't publish this stuff from the US because I am from the US? Do I start going over every document and picking out only what I think should be shared?
I realize there are many on this board who are not from the US and may not suffer many of our ideals, but let me provide you an example" in the US we have a law that was, in the beginning, very controversial. Geeks all over the world cried out how it was going to be terrible for the internet, our freedom was at peril, etc. That law was the DMCA, and it arrived under Clinton's regime. That law gave all sorts of power to copyright holders, who could send out notices to have things taken down without trial and so forth. And yes, it has been and is abused every day. But what it also did was shield internet providers from enforcement duties. That is, an ISP cannot be held libel for the actions of their subscribers. This strips ISPs of the desire (or need) to perform packet sniffing, packet throttling and countless other enforcement activities. Does this mean the internets are abused? Of course - but it provides a clear separation of responsibility and function.
Wikileaks mission is to disseminate information. That information can be used or abused a thousand ways - but that is not Wikileaks function to decide. Wikileaks is to "level the playing field" so to speak, which I contend is better than an alternative where secret information is STILL leaked but only to certain other secret and unknown identities. Wikileaks is dedicated to the destruction of secrets, and in that I contend they perform a valuable service to the world. If governments or corporations wish to keep these things secret, then they need to find better ways of doing so.
-
--While I must agree with the sentiment, expressed by RCMR of opposing the further growth of government power against the individual as shown (in my opinion) by government efforts to maintain dossiers on native citizens and further efforts to prevent ownership of firearms by the law abiding public, I must disagree with the notion that governments never have a legitimate need for secrecy. To my mind this is a silly and naive statement. Virtually everybody maintains privacy of their conversations and communications. Because they are doing things wrong?
Yes, but there needs to be protection for whilstleblowers and the journalists and media who expose them in the interests of the public.
You can argue about what info should and should not be released until the cows come home, there will never be any consensus on that, ever.
If the media didn't agree with what wikileaks released, then they wouldn't have republished it. But republish it they did, with gusto.
If the public didn't agree with what wikileaks released, then they would have been hounded for. But it seems that overall, the majority now seem to be saying that it was not a bad thing to do. Or at the very least it's split fairly closely, depending on which country and part of the population you poll, and when. And governments (are supposed to) serve to represent the opinion of the people.
Dave.
-
It's rather a point of limits: if I am dedicated to the free release of otherwise "secret" government or corporate information, and you come to me with some of this "secret" information, where do I draw the line? Do I say I won't release this infromation from Russia because I support Putin's line in the sand against invasions of western ideals? Do I say I won't publish this stuff from the US because I am from the US? Do I start going over every document and picking out only what I think should be shared?
The public release of "whilstleblower" material will always ultimately be upon the discretion of the individual whilsteblower, and there own moral code etc. Their actions will then be judged by the court of world opinion.
With the communications revolution (and wikileaks et.al) comes the ability for anyone to widely publish any information they wish. Try as governments might, there is no stopping this, ever.
Dave.
-
Yes, but there needs to be protection for whilstleblowers and the journalists and media who expose them in the interests of the public.
You can argue about what info should and should not be released until the cows come home, there will never be any consensus on that, ever.
Too true. Governments thrive on "need to now" while I'm no fan of Assange and his circus, I do see the need for disclosure and for freedom of speech and right to diversity of opinion. We don't need crap like http://m.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/fine-journalists-for-misleading-reporting-says-labor-mp-steve-gibbons/story-fndfo21g-1226454067373 (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/fine-journalists-for-misleading-reporting-says-labor-mp-steve-gibbons/story-fndfo21g-1226454067373) Would politicians be prepared to be judged by the same criteria? Gibbons and Conroy and all the other jerks in favour of such censorship are the ones who need locking up.
-
Too true. Governments thrive on "need to now" while I'm no fan of Assange and his circus, I do see the need for disclosure and for freedom of speech and right to diversity of opinion. We don't need crap like http://m.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/fine-journalists-for-misleading-reporting-says-labor-mp-steve-gibbons/story-fndfo21g-1226454067373 (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/fine-journalists-for-misleading-reporting-says-labor-mp-steve-gibbons/story-fndfo21g-1226454067373) Would politicians be prepared to be judged by the same criteria? Gibbons and Conroy and all the other jerks in favour of such censorship are the ones who need locking up.
It appears to me you are mixing ethical rights.
The right to an opinion or free speech have nothing to do with delivering news content.
The facts should be disclosed in their entirety and not presented with bias. Its the job of the reader/view/listener to form an opinion based on all the unbiased facts and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.
They either have a political agenda, or try to sensationalise the story to get better ratings.
Complex matters are far too often shown in shorthand leaving out important information leading up to an event. This leaves viewers, especially uneducated ones, coming away with an incorrect point of view.
-
It appears to me you are mixing ethical rights.
Not at all. We have politicians who see it as fair cop to twist the truth, provide deliberate misinformation and produce mass propaganda in favour of their particular slant. How is it ok for them to apply bias and yet expect other parties not to?
The right to an opinion or free speech have nothing to do with delivering news content.
This is exactly where free speech is most important!
The facts should be disclosed in their entirety and not presented with bias.
Shouldn't that apply to politicians? What about lobby groups?
Its the job of the reader/view/listener to form an opinion based on all the unbiased facts
What determines a fact as biased? Wont every reader/view/listener form their own bias anyway?
and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.
But isn't that balance? Haven't the politicians put a spin on it from the beginning? Don't we have a range of media with a range of bias and opinion. And if you want to rid commercial organisations from a right wing bias wont it also be necessary to remove the opposing bias from government funded news outlets?
They either have a political agenda, or try to sensationalise the story to get better ratings.
Yes and you've spotted this already, did you also spot the self serving and bias from the various political forces.
Don't yo see the Hypocrisy when political organisation bay about media bias? What they are baying about really is lack of sympathetic media bias.
Complex matters are far too often shown in shorthand leaving out important information leading up to an event.
What like a PM claiming that tax assistance should somehow be perceived as tax assistance for all?
This leaves viewers, especially uneducated ones, coming away with an incorrect point of view.
Oh this is the bit where moral superiority is claimed, is it? You can see bias but we have to protect the uneducated? What are we doing to protect those same uneducated from political propaganda?
Any politician demanding truth, accountability and balance from the media should be prepared to stand up to the same levels of accountability. If Journalists should be jailed for twisting the truth then so too should politicians. Let's see how many of them want to pass a bill like that.
-
not all uk mp are corrupt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg)
-
Comrade Galloway is as bent as he is red, Just ask Col. Qaddafi. Oh yes you will now have ask comrade Castro or comrade Mugabe.
-
It appears to me you are mixing ethical rights.
Not at all. We have politicians who see it as fair cop to twist the truth, provide deliberate misinformation and produce mass propaganda in favour of their particular slant. How is it ok for them to apply bias and yet expect other parties not to?
The right to an opinion or free speech have nothing to do with delivering news content.
This is exactly where free speech is most important!
The facts should be disclosed in their entirety and not presented with bias.
Shouldn't that apply to politicians? What about lobby groups?
Its the job of the reader/view/listener to form an opinion based on all the unbiased facts
What determines a fact as biased? Wont every reader/view/listener form their own bias anyway?
and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.
But isn't that balance? Haven't the politicians put a spin on it from the beginning? Don't we have a range of media with a range of bias and opinion. And if you want to rid commercial organisations from a right wing bias wont it also be necessary to remove the opposing bias from government funded news outlets?
They either have a political agenda, or try to sensationalise the story to get better ratings.
Yes and you've spotted this already, did you also spot the self serving and bias from the various political forces.
Don't yo see the Hypocrisy when political organisation bay about media bias? What they are baying about really is lack of sympathetic media bias.
Complex matters are far too often shown in shorthand leaving out important information leading up to an event.
What like a PM claiming that tax assistance should somehow be perceived as tax assistance for all?
This leaves viewers, especially uneducated ones, coming away with an incorrect point of view.
Oh this is the bit where moral superiority is claimed, is it? You can see bias but we have to protect the uneducated? What are we doing to protect those same uneducated from political propaganda?
Any politician demanding truth, accountability and balance from the media should be prepared to stand up to the same levels of accountability. If Journalists should be jailed for twisting the truth then so too should politicians. Let's see how many of them want to pass a bill like that.
"quote] and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.[/quote]
But isn't that balance? Haven't the politicians put a spin on it from the beginning? Don't we have a range of media with a range of bias and opinion. And if you want to rid commercial organisations from a right wing bias wont it also be necessary to remove the opposing bias from government funded news outlets?[/b]
I just want to comment on this bit,Unc!
When it comes to TV outlets,I think the bias is more perceived than real.
Having been,in my employment,exposed to many hours of both ABC & Commercial news,I haven't seen a lot of slanting in either,when it comes to actual news reporting,or that much on things other than actual "opinion pieces".
Obviously if you have things like dear old departed B.A. Santamaria's "Point of View",you have to expect a right wing slant,but most people know that it isn't necessarily that of the Station.
Some years back,during John Howard's term as PM ,after the delivery of the Budget Speech,both the CH7 Network & the ABC had in depth reviews on it.(Obviously so did everybody else,but I only watched these two).
The ABC said it was "a reasonable Budget,all things considered".
CH7,on the other hand,lambasted it.
Several days later,a senior member of the then Government blasted the ABC for their "biased reporting" of the Budget!
I wonder if they watched the wrong channel!
The print media are another matter,though,as they do tend to play favourites.
Back in the day,the "West Australian" used to hit the Coalition with numerous "niggles" up to the last minute,then flop back to the Coalition party line on the last day.
As for the dead but unmourned "Bulletin"---I think that rag was edited in the Liberal party room.
The "West" has mellowed these days,& doesn't show its political bent too obviously,whereas the "Sunday Times"is too busy getting week-old news wrong to bother anyone.
TVW7 had only a few hours to get its news straight,but was right more often than the "Sunday Times"!
I don't know of many Sandgropers who get the "Australian" which pretends to be a national paper,& the other ES papers which don't,but the numbers may be increasing with all the "'Tothersiders" who think they are going to work on the mines!
On another but related matter.
As a unreconstructed "lefty" from way back,it annoys me when other lefties talk crap about how "The Commercial stations won't say anything against their major advertisers".
That may have been the case many years ago,but these days,the Commercials regularly "bite the hand that feeds them!"
And get away with it!
At the end of the day,if you push a political point of view,or show that you are "wishy-washy"under pressure from big advertisers,the viewers will flip to another channel.
-
Former UK Ambassador has "private confirmation from within Foreign Office" that UK action follows US pressure
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/)
-
lets not forget why this happened in first place wikileaks uncovered major war crimes committed by USA
Who Are The Real Monsters ?
On July 12, 2007, the trigger happy US military shot several Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, an event that shocked the world when footage of the attack was later released by Wikileaks.
"The attack took place on a Thursday, when residents of the area had gone to a local market," explains filmmaker Shuchen Tan. "When they saw helicopters hovering over, they ran to their houses, thinking they'd be safe in there but it was those very houses that were blown up."
Permission to Engage traces the people involved in that fateful day and hears their versions of what happened.
Those killed included a young Iraqi photojournalist and his assistant, a father out with his children and some neighbours who were caught in the attack while trying to help the wounded.
Soldiers NOT heros
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/08/2012823616123717.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/08/2012823616123717.html)
-
That footage would have surfaced without wiki leaks, almost any TV station would have broadcast it, there was no need to publish all the chit chat from embassy's around the world.
Every one knows that the Americans are trigger happy. Who killed the most British soldiers during the invasion of Iraq the Iraqis or the Americans, it was the Americans by a long margin with so called friendly fire.
-
Big Coloring Books Inc is making a 9/11 coloring book with terrorist trading cards. Among the "True Faces of Evil" is Julian Assange as one of the terrorists.
http://www.coloringbook.com/NeverForget9/11pdq.aspx (http://www.coloringbook.com/NeverForget9/11pdq.aspx)
-
'Ecuador stands by Assange' - president Correa
'Ecuador stands by Assange' - president Correa exclusively to RT (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0xLyKaNvP4#)
Not many presidents talk like he does, not a puppet.
-
How do you embed those?
-
Met police embarrassed as Assange arrest plan revealed
A policeman has accidentally revealed a secret plan to seize Julian Assange “under all circumstances” if he steps outside the Ecuadorian embassy, in an embarrassment for Scotland Yard.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9498115/WikiLeaks-Met-police-embarrassed-as-Assange-arrest-plan-revealed.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9498115/WikiLeaks-Met-police-embarrassed-as-Assange-arrest-plan-revealed.html)
-
How do you embed those?
Just post the Youtube URL, the form software automatically embeds it.
Dave.
-
That footage would have surfaced without wiki leaks, almost any TV station would have broadcast it, there was no need to publish all the chit chat from embassy's around the world.
Every one knows that the Americans are trigger happy. Who killed the most British soldiers during the invasion of Iraq the Iraqis or the Americans, it was the Americans by a long margin with so called friendly fire.
"so called freindly fire"
There on to us, Uncle Sam!
American's oldest rival is on to our snuke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snuke) counter-offensive.
I told you we should have 'accidentally' detonated more than one bomb during the invasion.
I told you eighteen deaths wasn't enough. Sure that's like half their army, but it's just not enough DAMNIT!
....Note, the above was in jest.
-
The facts should be disclosed in their entirety and not presented with bias.
I don't mean to jump on your back, since someone else has already replied to this statement. But bias is inevitable. What there needs to be is a diversity of opinion. Without bias, reporters don't go after events they think are important. Some things ARE more important than others. The best reporters recognize what things are important. And that is bias.
Our media is going in the other direction in the U.S., and it is awful. Reporters are clueless about issues.
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--Publishing 250,000 USA State Department Emails is not the act of a whistle blower. it is the act of an Anti-American anarchist. Whistle blowers do not get Anti-Jihadi whistle blowers killed. So far, Mr. Assange has had a TV show hosted from Putin's Russia, been granted asylum by a criminal front man known for arresting journalists, and acquired a lawyer, who had to resign his judgeship after he authorized wire tapping the attorneys of criminal defendants. If you are going to sup with the devil, you will need a long spoon, and Mr. Assange is using a spork. Next he will turn up in Iran as Mymood Iminajihad's organ grinder.
--Bias in media is fine, it is even expected, but it should be openly declared, and facts should not be distorted. Here in the USA the Major Media like to report on the plight of the homeless, but only during Republican administrations. Reuters and AP have reported 40 or 50 out of the last one or two US and Israeli collateral damage incidents. A lot of innocent people were killed by Allied bombing in WWII but we did not have wire services insinuating "Did Allied Bombers Strike Orphanage On Purpose? "What happened to my puppy?" says wounded 5 year old."
“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
H.L. Mencken 1880 - 1956
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Sargeant Rock, I know you and many in the US are champing at the bit to get Julian Assange into Guantanamo bay, but you will have more chance of success if you refrain from demonising him until you have him safely under lock and key.
But I would be interested to hear what charges you expect he will be charged with, or even what you would charge him with,
- maybe publishing emails that say "top secret" at the top.
- maybe breaking the soon to be introduced, and retrospective Anti American anarchist law.
- maybe having a TV show in Putin's Russia.
- maybe being granted asylum by a criminal front man.
I wonder how many US. secret agent's lives he has put in danger? But I can't seem to get a figure on it.
Actually I know of one at least.
The Australian Ex minister for sports Mark Arbib. He certainly resigned soon afterwards.
-
Why is there an expectation by the US for citizens of other countries to keep their secrets?
-
Why is there an expectation by the US for citizens of other countries to keep their secrets?
Years of propaganda have made Americans(particularly white people) have most of their political interests against what's good for them, the us gov can and does throw critical journalists into secret prisons, just like china and the ussr before it collapsed.
-
Years of propaganda have made Americans particularly white people
I bet this had Michael Jackson feeling ripped off. All that money for surgery to turn him into a white woman, and he could have achieved similar results just by listening to TV propaganda. ???
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--Dda has asked "Why is there an expectation by the US for citizens of other countries to keep their secrets?"
--Now, while I cannot officially speak for the good old USA, as a veteran and a former member of the "US UK CAN AUS NZ Eyes Only" community, I will give you my humble opinion. It is not so much that the USA expects foreign citizens to keep its secrets, as that, it expects and demands that they do not, in contravention of law, break in and steal them. Kind of like Dda having the expectation that no one will break into his computer or smart phone and publish everything in order to get money and favors from murderous tyrants like Vladimir Stalin, er.., I mean Putin who murders real whistle blowers, journalists and politicians, and holds Kangaroo Court (no offense mate) Show Trials in order to put girls in the Gulag for singing songs. Meanwhile the folks who put up the bail money for the Silver Pimpernel can go spit, and his former good buddy Bradly Manning has been left holding a rather damp and malodorous bag, Mr. Assange having no more use for any of them, now that he has new friends like Putin and Correa who are fellow "Free Speech" advocates. It would have been nice for Mr. Assange to warn Pvt. Manning to that he was about to pull the cob out of the cow's arse, so that Pvt. Manning could have found himself a Murderous Dictator for a Sugar Daddy as well, but you cannot make an omelet..."
--When I had the honor and the privilege of providing intelligence to Armed Forces of our beloved countries, you can damn well bet I did not blab things which would get them killed, just to provoke a mild case of embarrassment for some politician or other.
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."
Augustus De Morgan 1806 -1871
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--HardBoot has said "Years of propaganda have made Americans(particularly white people) have most of their political interests against what's good for them, the us gov can and does throw critical journalists into secret prisons, just like china and the ussr before it collapsed."
--And no one can tell you about it because anyone who could have, has been carted off to one of Rosenfelt's secret prisons.
--Und zo, after Gretl finishes zinging Edelweiss, vie vill all choin in die Horst Wessell zong... Mein Gott! ... Dey are breaking down die door ... Schwartzen Helicopteren mitt die Psychotropen Blinken Lighten ... It ist die Götterdämmerung ... Helllllllp ...
"I have had my results for a long time: but I do not yet now how I am to arrive at them."
Carl Friedrich Gauss 1777 1855
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
--Publishing 250,000 USA State Department Emails is not the act of a whistle blower. it is the act of an Anti-American anarchist.
So you also think the New York Times, and others who also published cables are guilty of the same crime?
If the actual person who leaked the cables had do so through some other online service (lets say an ISP, or web host et.al), should the head of that service also be guilty of the same crime and be labelled the same way?
Dave.
-
--When I had the honor and the privilege of providing intelligence to Armed Forces of our beloved countries, you can damn well bet I did not blab things which would get them killed, just to provoke a mild case of embarrassment for some politician or other.
Name the people who have been killed as a result of these leaked cables.
Did it not occur to you that maybe this leak has done your country a favour?, by exposing a huge vulnerability in your system for keeping this stuff confidential? and hence giving an incentive to improve the security?
How many had access to this stuff?, IIRC it was at least several million people?
Dave.
-
--When I had the honor and the privilege of providing intelligence to Armed Forces of our beloved countries you can damn well bet I did not blab things which would get them killed, just to provoke a mild case of embarrassment for some politician or other.
Do you, in your mind, hear someone playing the fife while you're spruiking this nonsense?
Name the people who have been killed as a result of these leaked cables.
I almost died laughing while I was reading the prior quote. Does that count?
Did it not occur to you that maybe this leak has done your country a favour?
I cannot see how any of this whole cesspit of events has done anyone any favours, not Assange and his naughty boy actions or the massive over reactions by a variety of inept national administrations.
I have as much sympathy for Assange as I have for those kids that tease the neighbour's Rottweiler. No matter how many times you tell them, they don't get it until it all has ended in tears.
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--Our gracious host has asked "So you also think the New York Times, and others who also published cables are guilty of the same crime? If the actual person who leaked the cables had do so through some other online service (lets say an ISP, or web host et.al), should the head of that service also be guilty of the same crime and be labelled the same way?
--In this particular case it does not really matter at all what I think. This kind of case has already been litigated. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that the Government could not exercise prior restraint of publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York times. The NY Times has repeatedly published stories revealing intelligence programs that were tapping into Al Qaeda cell phones and programs tracing Al Qaeda financing, and quite apparently has every legal right to do so, even though this helped the terrorists to kill even more people. However the persons (unnamed sources) who leaked or stole the classified information, would still be subject to prosecution, if their identities were to be "leaked". And, I am just guessing here mind you, but leaking the identity of the leakers, would probably not meet with such a vociferous defense, nay? Now, with regard to the Assange WikiLeaks case, Mr. Assange's guilt or innocence would turn on whether or not he received electronic documents that were dropped on his doorstep, as in the Pentagon Papers case, or whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks actively penetrated US computer systems. In the first case he would be innocent, and in the second he would be guilty. It does not matter if the computer system belonged to Joe Blow or the US. If Mr. Assange was a passive recipient he is an innocent journalist, if he entered someone else's system without permission he is a thief, just as with the UK phone hackers. But Mr. Assange cannot be innocent merely because some folks like the cut of his jib. I just do not think, he is a Saint, but I of course agree that he should not be punished just because some people do not like his actions. And, Mr. Assange might even agree with my contention that he is an Anti-American Anarchist.
--Dave has also said "Name the people who have been killed as a result of these leaked cables. Did it not occur to you that maybe this leak has done your country a favour?, by exposing a huge vulnerability in your system for keeping this stuff confidential? and hence giving an incentive to improve the security? How many had access to this stuff?, IIRC it was at least several million people?"
--Taking the second question first, let me say that, I believe I already answered the question about being notified of a hole in fence when I stated "I take the point. Poptones is correct that revealing the leaks was a service", I just do not think it was necessary or a good thing to publish every single one. Nor do I believe that Mr. Assange was attempting to do my country, or any of the other "Free" countries mentioned in the Emails any favors. If DJ were to go on vacation and leave his front door unlocked, I would try to get the Police to check it out and lock the door, and I would not post pictures and the address on the internet as a "favor".
--Trying to connect any single one of the Taliban's numerous Afgani, and US murder victims directly to a particular leaked cable would be a difficult task, and obviously would probably be of even more help to the Murderers. But this would only be a concern for people who care about such things. But that a number of human beings were put in dire jeopardy by these leaks, is to my mind, beyond dispute. Please see the below link to a UK Telegraph article on the subject.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7915426/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Pentagon-says-informants-lives-at-risk.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7915426/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Pentagon-says-informants-lives-at-risk.html)
"But The Times reported that after just two hours of combing through the documents it was able to find the names of dozens of Afghans said to have provided detailed intelligence to US forces. The Times cited one 2008 document that included a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection. The man, who names local Taliban commanders and talks about other potential defectors, is identified by name, along with his father’s name and village."
--Of course, I agree that the US State Department must bear a large share of the responsibility for putting the lives of "friendlies" in danger. Stating, of course that I understand that DJ and others on this thread dispute the notion that anyone innocent could have possibly been harmed by this information.
"Happy for you to desoldering, please."
Wun Hung Lo 1948 -
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
If the wiki leaks affair shows anything it is the appalling lack of moral fiber in the public employees and service personnel, There are people who did secret or had access to secrets during the second world war that still have not revealed what they did even to their families. I t would appear that these days if some one is given secret information that they just cannot wait to run out into the street and shout it out for every one to hear.
-
Can't think of anything more to say at the moment, apart from my recognition that the internet is a magnificent feat of engineering. To think that I can type some random ramblings and have it viewed by thousands of people blows my mind. I personally believe that all of our ramblings on different subjects are the reorganising of information (a sort of cognitive functioning) inside a collective mind that is far more intelligent than the individual components (Us). As I've heard them say occasionally in the media: "The hive mind of the internet worked it out before us." I'm sure we'll work out whether Assange is a good/bad in the end.
The communications revolution offered by the internet has irrevocably changed the course of world politics, world history, world affairs, and the education and enlightenment of the masses. It is unstoppable, and what Assange and Wikileaks have set up is unstoppable. It was in fact, an inevitable consequence of the communications revolution. So it makes absolutely no difference if people agree or disagree with Assange/Wikileaks et.al, they simply have to live with the fact that this is the future progress of our civilisation, like it or not. Those who do not adapt or try to stop it will inevitably fail.
That is why I think without a doubt Assange will be on the right side of history.
Dave.
-
If the wiki leaks affair shows anything it is the appalling lack of moral fiber in the public employees and service personnel, There are people who did secret or had access to secrets during the second world war that still have not revealed what they did even to their families. I t would appear that these days if some one is given secret information that they just cannot wait to run out into the street and shout it out for every one to hear.
Well, considering that (by most accounts) several million people had access to this leaked information, it comes down to pure statistics I'm afraid. So I think your comment is unfounded here.
BTW, WW2 was full of traitors and spies, people who didn't just leak some (embarrassing at best) emails, but top secret stuff that could have changed the course of the war and indeed cost many lives.
Dave.
-
There is no doubt that the entire nature of information has changed. In the commercial arena, it has, in economic terms, been greatly devalued by its becoming ubiquitous. Of course, the RIAA didnt get the memo on that...
And in the governmental area, it has become fundamentally harder to keep secrets. I suspect that you are right, that Assange is a trailblazer of sorts, and in principal is on the right side of history.
However...I used to teach US History for a living to high school kids, age 16 or so, and every term, I had to deal with the legacy of John Brown. See, John Brown was on the right side of history, too. He was an aggressive, militant abolitionist and fought against slavery at every turn, most famously in the then-frontier state of Kansas. Problem is, sometimes in his zeal, he would do things like drag his opponents out of their homes and into their own front yards and hack them to bits with swords and other such nastiness. Eventually, he was captured trying to take over a government armory in a foolhardy bid to kick off a huge slave revolt in the south and got hung for his trouble and thus became a martyr for the abolitionist movement.
The right side of history? Sure. The right guy doing the right thing for a good cause? Not so much...
And I feel that Assange is somewhat in the same camp...the zealot who goes too far for a good cause. He may be venerated one day, or he may leave a more complex legacy such as John Brown, but one way or the other, he is likely to pay a steep price. They don't call it the "bleeding edge" for nothing...
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--As an openness advocate, Mr. Assange might want to pick his friends more carefully. Please see below additional interesting information on the WikiLeaks front. I have not included a link to the London's Private Eye article on this subject because it has no documentation, and it is single sourced, and therefore open to dispute.
--WikiLeaks UK media partner, goes off the reservation, see link below.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/08/israel-shamir-julian-assange-cult-machismo (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/08/israel-shamir-julian-assange-cult-machismo)
--And below the Libertarian Flagship Magazine delves into the antics of the noted Russian Jew-hater.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/03/julian-assange-and-israel-sham (http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/03/julian-assange-and-israel-sham)
"According to a reporter on Russian paper Kommersant, he was offering to sell articles based on the cables for $10,000 (£6,300). He had already passed some to the state-backed publication Russian Reporter. He traveled on to Belarus, ruled by the Soviet-style dictator Alexander Lukashenko, where he met regime officials. The Russian Interfax news agency reported that Shamir was WikiLeaks' "Russian representative", and had "confirmed the existence of the Belarus dossier".
--And lastly a clip from BBC's Panorama, with clip isolated below. This is the show that led Mr. Assange to assert that the BBC were using "Stolen Documents".
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/bbcs-panorama-julian-assange-and-israel-shamir/ (http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/bbcs-panorama-julian-assange-and-israel-shamir/)
BBC Panorama 2011 WikiLeaks The Secret Story remainder 001 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SGtDecD85c#ws)
"Does not squirrel crack nuts on bough of oak tree."
Lao Fu 1410 1620
Best Regards
Clear Ether