Julian Assange: the truth is out there

Chomsky: Arrest of Assange Is “Scandalous” and Highlights Shocking Extraterritorial Reach of US

Chomsky: Arrest of Assange Is “Scandalous” and Highlights Shocking Extraterritorial Reach of US

 

I knew Assange in my early 20s, in a club we were in, long hair in a ponytail then (both of us!). I was in the committee of this club and we wanted to kick him out because we knew he was dodgy. But I insisted that we could not and had to follow the rules of the club. Nothing has changed.

 

S02 #5 Julian Assange - Russia's favourite publisher

 

What sort of club?
What do you mean "we knew he was dodgy"?

 

A computer club of sorts. We more or less knew he was hacking from his system and didn't want that coming through club networks. We didn't have absolute proof but wanted his system gone. I was adamant that we must follow correct club proceedure.

 

More or less, please pick one.

So you kicked Assange out because you "assume" he was hacking from within the club, it's like you make a butcher guilty of selling meat without seeing it because that is what a butcher does.
What you're telling sounds more like an internal rivalry with Assange because he is genius and you worried to lose your seat.
By the way, Assange was declared "clean" by the Australian Federal government but Julia Gillard publicly demonised Assange while she was being investigated for corruption.
Assange exposed the crimes that the US have committed in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of democracy!

 

Lose my seat? On the committee of a club? Really that what I was scared of? Not maybe the feds coming in and shutting down the whole frigging club. We would have lost our internet access, at a time when there were NO ISPs.

We are not talking about Gillard, this is early 1990s. If you know what was and not happening on suburbia, go ahead. I stopped these people just arbitrarily kicking him out of the club, following the rules of the club the right thing to do. In the end our strong suspisions were right, but I can't remember when and why he left.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/por...d-and-secretive-young-man-20101211-18thz.html

I am neutral on his current actions, I can see good and bad.

 

As I said the Australian government cleared Assange of any wrongdoing while Gillard "after" the clearance kept on demonising Assange while she was being investigated for corruption, I know you didn't like that.
But I would understand your "fear" since Australia like NZ is a vassal (they call state) slave of US so the CIA would kick in and kidnap Assange like they did in NZ (and all around the world), again in the name of democracy.

I stopped reading from local news "businesses" as they are mostly financed by governments so all news are filtered and biased to suit political sides.

If you really are independent and not biased and you care to know the truth, I suggest you watch the latest Roger Waters's I call it documentary, he in a few minutes explains what is happening in the world and who is wanting and preparing for war.

 

Are you saying these charges don't exist? Are you saying he didn't plead guilty? Because if that is the case Assange would have sued The Age for defamation. Maybe that was covered up also.

 

Sorry i'm late, been away on vacay . Looks like Lizzie already answered you though.

Accessing a computer system without permission by circumventing protection mechanisms, then obtaining classified documents from said exposed system and publishing them online is against the law in many ways, hacking at it's very core is considered illegal (Hacking being gaining access to those secure systems which you do not have permission to access therefore you circumvent the protection methods). The Australian version of the law was introduced in 2005: Hacking offences

Basically think of it like this: If a shop owner goes home and you smash the window then walk in a grab what you want then give it to your mates, you are breaking the law.

The fact that you gave it to your mates doesn't help you, the fact that the shopkeeper used breakable glass in his window doesn't help you, you took something that is not your property without permission of the owner.

Hell even if he left his door wide open by accident, it would still be stealing.

 

That got nothing to do with the freedom of information.
The US playing democracy when it suits their black agenda but when people discover their illegal and criminal actions, that is illegal.
Assange is an hero, he showed to all the world the US crimes being committed in the invaded countries.
The US is well known for hacking and taping all German officials including Merkel so nothing happened there? Where are the criminals? Who hacked Venezuela's power houses? You talk about laws made by the criminals to protect the criminals!

 

Indeed, he is a regular ol Robin Hood (Also a criminal portrayed as a hero for the sake of a story).

So basically what you are saying is:

If I break into a store and steal some stuff, I have done nothing wrong because the shop owner has also stolen things?

So basically, to achieve absolute legal immunity we should break the law against others who have broken a law?

I'm not sure I follow why he is a hero, he has done the wrong thing, if you refer to my initial post it does point out that regardless of the outcome, he has still willingly broken laws. You can point out outcomes as much as you like but it doesn't really change anything does it?

 

For the sake of the story? Who are you?

You said that and it's very clear that either you got a problem with Assange or you're in a conflict of interests.
We live in a democratic and developed country (someone says that) where citizens are an important asset and must be protected so what is doing the Australian government! Nothing!
By the way, you "seem" to be aware of hacking being labeled as a criminal act while the US is the first and only country which hacked in other governments' officials including presidents, so what are you talking about, Law?

 

Actually - appears the other way around and that you idolise Assange and think his illegal actions ... that put at risk the lives of numerous intelligence agents and blurted to the world the secrets of another country ... were justified somehow.

Freedom of information does not mean freedom to ALL information - just like freedom of speech does not mean freedom of ALL speech

Dan is right in his analogy - just because one exists in the physical realm and one exists in the cyber realm does not dissipate the act of illegality

 

I'm Dan, fair minded, morally equipped, law abiding citizen, nice to meet you .

Some other things I believe which you may really hate:
The earth is round,
The government is not "out to get us",
Big Pharma don't have a cure for cancer but hold it back to make money of chemo
Immunization doesn't bring on autism.

Now I don't "know" you but I would not be surprised if you disagree with at least 2 of the things I just said there .

Hopefully that answers your question about who I am .

With regards to JA, I am not sure what you think you know about me but my opinions are all layed out in this thread, I don't like the way Assange has done things and I have not hidden that, not sure what conflict of interest you think I have, I don't work for the government or the USA (or even the Ecuadorian embassy) if that's what you mean??? I'm a little confused by your post.

 

Pretty bizarre analogy.. I don't agree with your comparison of theft from a store to whistleblowing on a government which invaded a foreign country on false pretenses, whose military was found to have killed innocent people (including Reuters staff) and which was spying in violation of international treaties, but each to their own I guess.

I think it would be hard to argue a case that "numerous" lives were put at risk considering the full unredacted cables were released some 18 months after Manning was arrested and a set of redacted cables were published. In fact BBC wrote in 2016 that "Direct evidence of harm has been hard to find". I think I read one time that after the unredacted cables were released 'a few' sources had been relocated. Which are the numerous lives that were put at risk? There would be a huge incentive to find ways that Assange had harmed others, so you'd think this information would have come to light in the last 8 years if he did risk the lives of numerous intelligence agents as claimed.

As usual there is a lot of arm waving and outlandish criticisms of Assange / Wikileaks, but little provided to back it up... including for the accusation he broke the law on multiple occasions (unless we are counting an allegation of offering to crack a password as breaking the law on multiple occasions or diving back into a his convictions from 30 years prior).