Julian Assange : Wrong Political Gamble, Know When To Hold'em, Know When To Fold'em...

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


The people have a RIGHT to know the truth. it is after all their Goverment working for them..(Well thats the theory..)

It is the Goverment acting illegally by hiding so much..
Look how they seal files for 20,30 even 50 years...

I support those that try to show us the truth..........

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by hippomchippo
The thing is, you don't know what materials he has.
He could have something that would make the government completely stop in their tracks, perhaps thats why he's running loose? Because he knows he can't be stopped?
Who are these network of criminals then? A bunch of people with computer skills who manage to get into sensitive government documents? That's a far cry from a basement hacker trying to steal your mothers internet, no?

If Assange has something that important they will just kill him.

Irregardless of his attempts at disseminating that information.

No, I have heard he has State Department documents, classified ones.

And ATS is my only source of that information as well as the news.

But if he came knocking on my door for refuge I would turn him away.

And there is a distinct difference between Assange and Script Kiddies.

Assange associates with hackers and crackers and the others are a joke.

Exactly, thats why he's running loose and going to the public.
If he gets killed now, then what? He becomes a martyr for the free speech movement, and if you don't think he has dead man switches set for if he does get killed, you're being naive.
Also, just because you heard he has state department documents doesn't mean he does, especially if your source is ATS.
Yes, I know, I was pointing out that what Assanges "hackers" are doing, is not what your average hacker does, which is usually something completely malicious and for profit only, these people are hacking for free speech.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Yes, I can see your point, supporting a law which is itself, criminally negligent, might seem detrimental to one's own self, but then again, there is a correct and incorrect way to go about getting it changed isn't there?

"I have a dream" - Martin Luther King Jr


A much better way to fight that corruption is not through giving them a means to shut you down, but to bog down what they do, by using legal framework.

reply to post by LostNemesis


Hey, great to hear from you, feel free to disagree all you want.

I see that as a compliment itself because it means you're free to think.

The left verses the right is just a game though, it always has been, a shell game.

But to use our brains, our most powerful ability, to think is what we should do.

As I see it, Assange is nothing more than a gamer, who uses cheat codes.

And never really beats the game but claims he does anyway.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Hi

I agree, the law is their for a reason. However...
When the law prevents us from exposing criminal and unethical behavior from our governments, I say screw the law.

Yes, I do agree, screw the law, but do it in such a way they cannot stop you.

This way, by taking classified documents, they can now prosecute him.

They will be able to use everything against him and he will not win.

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

The people have a RIGHT to know the truth. it is after all their Goverment working for them..(Well thats the theory..)

It is the Goverment acting illegally by hiding so much..
Look how they seal files for 20,30 even 50 years...

I support those that try to show us the truth..........

Yes, allegedly, the Government is suposed to work for us, not against us.

And I absolutely hate that they hide secrets from us.

But by using our brains, we can figure this stuff out, it's not difficult.

The very words politicians use expose their lies and crimes.

If you know how to interpret policy, how to detangle double-speak, and use common sense.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Exactly, thats why he's running loose and going to the public.
If he gets killed now, then what? He becomes a martyr for the free speech movement, and if you don't think he has dead man switches set for if he does get killed, you're being naive.
Also, just because you heard he has state department documents doesn't mean he does, especially if your source is ATS.
Yes, I know, I was pointing out that what Assanges "hackers" are doing, is not what your average hacker does, which is usually something completely malicious and for profit only, these people are hacking for free speech.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

A dead martyr is a useless leader.

Someone who can actually lead is better than a coffin or a statue.

There is a distinct difference from utilizing your voice for free speech and a computer.

Our voices, our words, our thoughts are protected, a trojan virus is not.

Julian Assange is the contemporary Robin Hood. He steals a wealth of information and releases it to us poor ignorant folk.

I think you are over reacting with the idea of ATS being shut down because of affiliation with wikileaks and open support. This seems illogical and if it occurs then there are far greater things to be worried about than the removal of a website.

Wikileaks presents information to us without an agenda it's just information. There is no spin, no hook line 'we are the truth' the information is presented and we form our own opinions.

Governments globally monitor our activities more closely than ever before, there moto is if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Well I say the same goes for them, if you don't want to be called out and embarrassed, your failings put in the spotlight, then stop your own illegal activities. The difference being we will be punished for our discrepancies they will not.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


How about this speech, from a past President killed for his views??

JFK made it clear there are those that keep secrets and asked "we the people" to do everything in our power to bring forth the TRUTH...

JFK would have given Julian a Medal....

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
A dead martyr is a useless leader.

Someone who can actually lead is better than a coffin or a statue.

There is a distinct difference from utilizing your voice for free speech and a computer.

Our voices, our words, our thoughts are protected, a trojan virus is not.

What distinction is that then?
Free speech is free speech regardless of format.
Sure, he would be better as a leader, but you have to realize he probably has soemthing set in place in the event he does die, where either someone else stands up, or they drop the motherload on the U.S government.

If the governments of our countries have been spying on us and obtaining information illegally then I believe the government is the pot calling the kettle black. They have no moral high ground to object to how Assange and his affiliates obtained information and how they intend to use it.

Quotation relating to an up and coming release on wikileaks;

Assange says "I can give an analogy. If there had been mass spying that had affected many, many people and organizations and the details of that mass spying were released then that is something that would reveal that the interests of many people had been abused."

______beforeitsnews/news/88/144/Wikileaks_Founder_Assange_Gives_a_Hint_on_Orwellian_Bombshell.html

We will have to wait and see if this comes to fruition.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Big Raging Loner]

And anyone who supports them, speaks well of them, and or believes in their methods.

I stopped reading there also. No one is a criminal due to what they think, and what beliefs they hold.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


So, instead of using your brain and common sense, you would rather rely on criminal actions?

Personally, I love the challenge of deciphering what is going on, using my brain.

That is itself what conspiracy theorizing is all about, to think and undestand.

Not commit criminal actions which will lead to jail cells.

I'm not over-reacting to the potential for ATS being shut down.

I used it as an example, merely as an illustration, of the repercussion of Assange's actions.

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

How about this speech, from a past President killed for his views??

JFK made it clear there are those that keep secrets and asked "we the people" to do everything in our power to bring forth the TRUTH...

JFK would have given Julian a Medal....

www.youtube.com...

Who knows what John F. Kennedy might have done?

His father was a bootlegger of Moonshine and became a politician.

And Jack used the Mafia to get to the White House.

Then he double-crossed them and was killed for it.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
A dead martyr is a useless leader.

Someone who can actually lead is better than a coffin or a statue.

There is a distinct difference from utilizing your voice for free speech and a computer.

Our voices, our words, our thoughts are protected, a trojan virus is not.

What distinction is that then?
Free speech is free speech regardless of format.
Sure, he would be better as a leader, but you have to realize he probably has soemthing set in place in the event he does die, where either someone else stands up, or they drop the motherload on the U.S government.

Speech is the actions of words coming out of someone's mouth.

And by that method one typing out words in a forum would be covered under that.

But, the actions of hacking, or cracking, are directly violating the security of a computer.

I would sure hope he has a killswitch if they nail him.

I know I do but then again they cannot just kill someone using their brains.

Killswitch Engage - Holy Diver

I respect the law. I do.

But when the law is unjust, or there are laws that are preventing humanity from becoming MORE humane, or that keeps people from protecting others (Often the case with ethical hackers and security researchers) then I say to heck with them - it's my spiritual DUTY to break them.

So what. So freaking what. This is just ONE life.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Speech is the actions of words coming out of someone's mouth.

And by that method one typing out words in a forum would be covered under that.

But, the actions of hacking, or cracking, are directly violating the security of a computer.

I would sure hope he has a killswitch if they nail him.

I know I do but then again they cannot just kill someone using their brains.

Killswitch Engage - Holy Diver

Oh I see, so you have a bit of internet jealously over him? Why else would you tell me that you have a killswitch and that you use your brain and he doesn't.
Why aren't you releasing sensitive documents?
Why are you against him releasing information about mass spying on U.S citizens?
It seems like all you care about is the fact that they get it through hacking, how else do you expect them to get it? Asking nicely?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

"Conspiracy theorizing" is just that theorizing. Instead Assange presents us with indisputable evidence. Conspiracy theory as a whole has got nothing to do with common sense. It's about making connections and filling in gaps with your own ideas, and therefore is often not based on evidence.

This guy is taking the bullet for us to have the truth and I commend him for that.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


Yes, "secret evidence" is not something I support, but fight it legally.

Quote from : Wikipedia : State Secrets Privilege

The State Secrets Privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent.

The court is asked to exclude evidence from a legal case based solely on an affidavit submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security, and military secrets in particular as in the case of United States v. Reynolds, the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine.

This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.

The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.

Do not give them a reason to use a Kangaroo Court on you though.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Kangaroo Court

A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead court-martial, refers to a sham legal proceeding or court.

The colloquial phrase "kangaroo court" is used to describe judicial proceedings that deny due process rights in the name of expediency.

Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.

The outcome of a trial by "kangaroo court" is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

As per the original thread, all I am saying, is if you're going to fight, do not make it easier.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I get what you're saying about the legality issue, but if this guy is willing to put his own neck on the line to provide us with information then why not exploit it? Why not take advantage?

I suspect Assange is just a frontman, and perhaps has been chosen to take the fall. He is provided as a scape goat as it were, by the actual brains behind wikileaks. This takes the heat of those actually acquiring this sensitive information, and it means all investigative leads will follow his trail primarily.

Originally posted by Phlynx

And anyone who supports them, speaks well of them, and or believes in their methods.

I stopped reading there also. No one is a criminal due to what they think, and what beliefs they hold.

Where in there does it suggest thinking is a crime?

Support, as in monetarily, or giving use of machinery, speaking well of a criminal only spreads lies through propaganda, something we're supposed to hate, and believing in the criminal method of hacking/cracking is exploiting a weakness to violate the law.

I think you've missed the entire point of what I was saying.

Originally posted by hadriana
I respect the law. I do.

But when the law is unjust, or there are laws that are preventing humanity from becoming MORE humane, or that keeps people from protecting others (Often the case with ethical hackers and security researchers) then I say to heck with them - it's my spiritual DUTY to break them.

So what. So freaking what. This is just ONE life.

But who's life is he jeopardizing due to his actions other than himself?

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Oh I see, so you have a bit of internet jealously over him? Why else would you tell me that you have a killswitch and that you use your brain and he doesn't.
Why aren't you releasing sensitive documents?
Why are you against him releasing information about mass spying on U.S citizens?
It seems like all you care about is the fact that they get it through hacking, how else do you expect them to get it? Asking nicely?

Jealousy?

Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree, jealousy is something I do not do.

And I answered in like-kind to your reference to killswitches.

I would never release classified documents if I had them to release.

That is clearly breaking the law.

No, asking does little, I expect him to use his brain, period.

Obviously, you have never read any of my other threads, or you might know where I am coming from more, so I suggest you do some reading.

Here are three off the top of my head :

Bilderberger : The Global Agenda, Eugenics, Global Warming, And Biochiping Sheeple

Blackmail : Keep Your Friends Close, Keep Your Enemies Closer, The Threat of Subversion Through Fear

Divide and Conquer : Political Ideology of the Power Elite, Selling The Peace, War Is The Motive

There is a difference between reading, cross-referencing, and knowing.

And utilizing lazy methods to cheat your way into finding out.

Because that is all Assange has done is cheat his way to knowledge.

He never earned the knowledge he stole, he simply stole it, or accepted stolen information.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


Because to exploit the weaknesses he has he has done quite a few things.

1) He broke the law, through hacking and or cracking, if he did so.

2) He has exploited someone, thereby using them, to obtain information.

3) His actions might well lead to jail time of those he leaked from.

Trust me, I understand divide and conquer, a weakness is a weakness.

In warfare, you use a weakness, but if he is at war with America?

What about Australia now and their alliance with us and peace treaties?

If Australia does not declare him an outlaw we could technically declare war on them.

Correct?

I am not saying America will nor do I desire to do so since I love Australia.

But through the State Department and the legal means avaiable they can put diplomatic pressure upon Australia now, and we might lose an ally.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I usually enjoy reading your posts and still do this time, but I must disagree. My premise for disagreeing is that there are laws in each country. Jurisdiction of any law is bound only within the borders of the country the law exists in. Assange found a country that supports his work and protects him under the laws of that country. I believe it is wrong to condemn him for breaking OUR laws, when he does not operate from the USA.

What is the difference between Assange and a foreign news corporation that reports stories about the USA. I think if we are a country that believes in rights and laws of other nations, then no matter how damning the information that is obtained is, is a choice that nation needs to make. I have no problem with why you feel like Assange is out of line. I just ponder why our government holds themselves on high proclaiming themselves as faultless, yet works hard to cover what it claims was a simple mistake.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Jealousy?

Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree, jealousy is something I do not do.

And I answered in like-kind to your reference to killswitches.

I would never release classified documents if I had them to release.

That is clearly breaking the law.

No, asking does little, I expect him to use his brain, period.

Obviously, you have never read any of my other threads, or you might know where I am coming from more, so I suggest you do some reading.

Here are three off the top of my head :

Bilderberger : The Global Agenda, Eugenics, Global Warming, And Biochiping Sheeple

Blackmail : Keep Your Friends Close, Keep Your Enemies Closer, The Threat of Subversion Through Fear

Divide and Conquer : Political Ideology of the Power Elite, Selling The Peace, War Is The Motive

There is a difference between reading, cross-referencing, and knowing.

And utilizing lazy methods to cheat your way into finding out.

Because that is all Assange has done is cheat his way to knowledge.

He never earned the knowledge he stole, he simply stole it, or accepted stolen information.

I've actually read and enjoyed several of your threads, please don't assume things.
We differ in opinion, I believe all information should be freely available, and that the state should not keep any secrets besides vital military strategies and equipment.
But just curious, and this is going to be my last post, but, how do you expect we obtain this vital information if not by using "lazy" methods that are tried and true such as hacking and breaking into government websites?
He never earned the knowledge he stole? He shouldn't have to earn knowledge about mass spying on U.S citizens, nor should he have to earn knowledge about how our troops are killing civilians abroad.
I had a nice chat, but I must say I strongly disagree with this thread.