• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hodgman

It's official: western citizen granted asylum from western tyrants

72 posts in this topic

Because it's expected of me: I must say that The Guardian intentionally fucked up by intentionally tossing their decryption key out into the public forum, intentionally. It's not like they're the only organization committed to "guarding" the planet who has intentionally fucked the dog in terms of redaction, but these guys get a big gold star from me because they tried to capitalize on the whole situation as quickly as possible in order to make a buck. I wonder what Anonymous would think about this kind of situation, where a corporation is preying on an individual.

Bwahahaha. What a fucking joke.

Sorry for the "unexpected" and "unwanted" interruption.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1345185475' post='4970449']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge.[/quote]Wikileaks and it's partners (e.g. NYT) all worked together to perform the same redactions, together, as a team, after the US government refused to assist in the redaction process. It's a huge job to redact 250,000 documents, which is why they all cooperated on it.
Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them.[/quote]As Journalists are allowed to do, though try very hard to avoid. Do you actually have any proof that this occurred though? The Afghan war logs did unintentionally miss some names in the redaction process ([i]as usual, they asked the US government to help in the redaction process, who refused[/i]), and thus named some Afghan informants ([i]though no harm came to them[/i]), but the "cablegate" affair was redacted fully. You're regurgitating propaganda again.
[/quote]
It was in the link I posted earlier. The Times of London found names and locations of informants in the wikileaks documents.

edit: It's not propaganda. It happened, you just admitted it happened. Reporters without borders, a freedom of information activist group, [url="http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html"]publicly called them out on it[/url]. The fact that you are labeling it propaganda is just you trying to legitimize your own biases by disenfranchising my counters.

How can you trivialize leaking the names of informants in hostile territory with a group that's publicly threatened informants with death close by? Like I said before, some of what wikileaks is doing is fine. They have, however, crossed the line both legally and ethically.

Doing some good does not excuse you from following the law. It does not excuse you from your ethical and moral responsibilities. Edited by way2lazy2care
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345217098' post='4970576']
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1345185475' post='4970449']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge.[/quote]Wikileaks and [NYT] worked together to perform the same redactions.
Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']He knowingly divulged ... the names of US informants[/quote]As Journalists are allowed to do, though try very hard to avoid. Do you actually have any proof that this occurred though? The Afghan war logs did unintentionally miss some names in the redaction process ... but the "cablegate" affair was redacted fully.[/quote]
It was in the link I posted earlier. The Times of London found names and locations of informants in the wikileaks documents.

edit: It's not propaganda. It happened, you just admitted it happened. Reporters without borders, a freedom of information activist group, [url="http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html"]publicly called them out on it[/url]. The fact that you are labeling it propaganda is just you trying to legitimize your own biases by disenfranchising my counters.

How can you trivialize leaking the names of informants in hostile territory with a group that's publicly threatened informants with death close by? Like I said before, some of what wikileaks is doing is fine. They have, however, crossed the line both legally and ethically.

Doing some good does not excuse you from following the law. It does not excuse you from your ethical and moral responsibilities.
[/quote]I called this "propaganda" because you're greatly underestimating the amount of redaction that occurred, and exaggerating the impacts caused by mistaken gaps in redaction. For example, you claimed that "[i]In some cases it put families in direct harm[/i]", which is complete hyperbole.

Read again: They didn't knowingly publish informants names, the vast majority of these names were redacted, but a small number slipped through. [b]Everyone[/b] who published these documents and worked on the redaction process (i.e. Wikileaks, NYT, Guardian, etc) all fucked up there, by accident. It was not their intent to put anyone in harms way, and furthermore, the US govt was forced to admit that, despite trying hard to find a case, they could not find a single case where someone had come to harm because of these leaks ([i]I'd like to think that they 'reeled in' the informants who were put at risk by the leak to prevent this[/i]).
This was a huge ethical mishap by the journalists involved, yes, which is why they were even more thorough with future publications, but it wasn't [b]intentional[/b] as you claimed.
Further, it was in no way illegal. The people who stole the documents in the first place are legally in the wrong, not the journalists who published them. If you want to claim Wikileaks has broken the law by publishing these, then the NYT and many other media companies are also liable... which isn't the case.

What point are you trying to make here? That journalists aren't always ethical? Saying that Wikileaks has broken the law here is only true if they actually committed the theft in the first place, not if they were journalists publishing the material. A US conviction is going to rest on proving that Assange et al actually participated in the theft, along with Manning.

For a bit of perspective, contrast this accidental leaking of a few informants names with the [i]deliberate [/i]leaking of the name of an undercover CIA field agent by the Bush administration for political gain and petty revenge. In that case, no journalists were charged, despite them being the unethical tool that broadcast the dangerous information.

[edit]BTW, it's incredibly frustrating to try and talk to you, way2lazy, as whenever anyone asks you a tricky question about one of your opinions, or demonstrates that you're speaking falsehoods, you simply ignore it and move on to the next bit of nit-picking ([i]not just in this topic either[/i]). There's at least half a dozen un-answered questions directed at you here. Maybe I'll join you in this ignorance, it seems cozy... Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1345220682' post='4970595']
I called this "propaganda" because you're greatly underestimating the amount of redaction that occurred, and exaggerating the impacts caused by mistaken gaps in redaction. For example, you claimed that "[i]In some cases it put families in direct harm[/i]", which is complete hyperbole... and furthermore, the US govt was forced to admit that, despite trying hard to find a case, they could not find a single case where someone had come to harm because of these leaks (I'd like to think that they 'reeled in' the informants who were put at risk by the leak to prevent this).[/quote]
I'm not hyperbolizing anything with this. The released names and locations of Afghan informants in a hostile region in relatively close proximity to an organization who has publicly announced that it would kill informants. That is all I am saying, and it is verifiable fact. If you do not consider putting informant families in close proximity to a group who has publicly expressed a will to kill informants "direct harm" then I don't see how you can find extraditing Assange to Sweden in any way harmful.

It is truly great that nobody was hurt, but to say that people's lives were not put in any sort of jeopardy is just wrong. Just because you don't get the bullet in Russian roulette doesn't make it a safe game in retrospect.

[quote]Read again: They didn't knowingly publish informants names, the vast majority of these names were redacted, but a small number slipped through. [b]Everyone[/b] who published these documents and worked on the redaction process (i.e. Wikileaks, NYT, Guardian, etc) all fucked up there, by accident. It was not their intent to put anyone in harms way, [/quote]
I'm aware it may not have been on purpose, but that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant investigation. Similarly accidentally doing wrong does not excuse you from the repercussions. Nor does doing any amount of right excuse you from obeying the law of two countries(UK/Sweden).

[quote]What point are you trying to make here? That journalists aren't always ethical? Saying that Wikileaks has broken the law here is only true if they actually committed the theft in the first place, not if they were journalists publishing the material.[/quote]
It's also illegal to solicit people to commit the crime, which, being a site whose express purpose is to leak confidential information, at least warrants investigation.

[quote]For a bit of perspective, contrast this accidental leaking of a few informants names with the [i]deliberate [/i]leaking of the name of an undercover CIA field agent by the Bush administration for political gain and petty revenge. In that case, no journalists were charged, despite them being the unethical tool that broadcast the dangerous information.[/quote]
You're saying this like I condone that instance or any other instances similar, such as Obama's use of the operation that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden. I do not condone either.

[quote]
[edit]BTW, it's incredibly frustrating to try and talk to you, way2lazy, as whenever anyone asks you a tricky question about one of your opinions, or demonstrates that you're speaking falsehoods, you simply ignore it and move on to the next bit of nit-picking ([i]not just in this topic either[/i]). There's at least half a dozen un-answered questions directed at you here. Maybe I'll join you in this ignorance, it seems cozy...
[/quote]
Go back and read your own replies. You're at least as bad as I am. Perhaps it's time to get introspective and realize you're just doing the same thing arguing the opposite perspective.

I started posting in this thread just stating known facts. That was met with hyperbole and alarmism which drew me to give a counter perspective, not necessarily one I believe in, that was equally as hyperbolic on some points. I've stated I was being hyperbolic just to paint the opposite picture on some points previously.

To be clear, you are assuming that Assange shouldn't be extradited after failing his appeal multiple times. You are assuming that Sweden is extraditing him with the express purpose of getting him into American custody. You are assuming that should he be brought into American custody that he will not have a fair trial, and that he will be charged with the death penalty. Without a very solid case I find the latter unlikely as it would cause huge political fallout by the media during an election year.

The most likely scenario is that the US would have extradited him from the UK anyway if it wanted to, but he was already being extradited to Sweden. The US probably didn't want to pressure UK courts with a decision between two extraditions. Sweden and the UK probably don't want to say he won't be extradited to the US because it will break treaties with the US; this does not mean they will not give investigation into extradition before doing/not doing so. This is what I think the most likely situation is, but I'm not running in here screaming foul because the only facts we know are that he is avoiding being questioned in an investigation for his sexual assault of two women in Sweden.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345225945' post='4970623']
[quote]BTW, it's incredibly frustrating to try and talk to you, way2lazy,[/quote]
Go back and read your own replies. You're at least as bad as I am.
[/quote]

Well, although you two seem to frustrate each other, thank-you both for what seemed to me anyways to be one of the more intelligent discussions on this matter that I have read lately.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so your point is that the US [i]should[/i] be investigating Assange? Ok, good, [url="http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html"]they are[/url]. I'm not sure why you decided to argue this point so fervently when no-one suggested the opposite...
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345225945' post='4970623']Go back and read your own replies. You're at least as bad as I am.[/quote]Point me to somewhere where I've been asked a direct question (you known, a sentence that ends in a "?") and haven't been able to answer it.

If you can, I'll answer it, otherwise I'm out. This is insane.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345225945' post='4970623']I started posting in this thread just stating known facts.[/quote]All of your posts in this thread, except the last few have been presenting falsehoods as facts!! That is not a perspective issue -- you've been making statements that are provably false, which is not "[i]just stating known facts[/i]".
You're extremely ignorant and misinformed about this issue ([i]hence presenting falsehoods[/i]), and ignore all evidence presented against your "facts", which is what I was talking about before. How on earth can you go around telling lies, be shown that they are lies, then continue to ignore the evidence to the contrary. I'm not qualified to deal with this, sorry. Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the release of the decryption key had been an "accident" made under the assumption that the (availability of the) data was time-sensitive. So much for "fact-checking" journalists then!

They fucked the dog, and tried to cover their asses with a non-apology.

So, where does the past self-appointed public spokesperson of Anonymous work? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, but this blind infatuation with journalists is totally unrealistic; they're professional stalkers who sell strife, by definition. Edited by taby
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='taby' timestamp='1345228289' post='4970630']
So, where does the past self-appointed public spokesperson of Anonymous work? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, but this blind infatuation with journalists is totally unrealistic; they're professional stalkers who sell strife, [b]by definition.[/b]
[/quote]

For [i]which[/i] definition of "journalist?"

edit: On topic: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html Edited by Oberon_Command
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Amadeus H' timestamp='1345184091' post='4970442']
As a side note, Ecuador seems very intent on doing whatever pisses the US off the most. Have fun trading with the West in the next century [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]

Also, just wanted to clarify that my first post was what I perceived the media opinion in Sweden, not mine.
My personal opinion is that I find it extremely dodgy that we're going through so much trouble to question him for a crime where its extremely difficult (in Sweden) to prosecute anyone for - even with [i]solid [/i]evidence.
[/quote]

You have to ignore the Bonniers and Schibsted owned media, They are both extremely biased. (Unfortunatly those 2 companies own pretty much all swedish media so there isn't that many trustworthy sources of news available, usually its best to browse around foreign newssites aswell (Our situation is pretty much like the one in the US where the big media companies are essentially pushing their own agendas mixing heavily biased news reporting with tabloid articles)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Amadeus H' timestamp='1345122728' post='4970151']
Here in Sweden we're pretty convinced he should be put on trial for rape. He's got nothing to hide... right?
[/quote]

USA should let him do the same and release all the information he has, they have nothing to hide... right? ;)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2007/sep/04/thegoodnewsaboutbadnewsi"]http://www.guardian....wsaboutbadnewsi[/url]

Like the guy says: this is common knowledge. I do admire him for his wishful thinking, which is a whole lot better than naive thinking.

And let's be perfectly honest about why bad news really sells: it makes us feel holier than thou. Edited by taby
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1345227372' post='4970629']
Ok, so your point is that the US [i]should[/i] be investigating Assange? Ok, good, [url="http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html"]they are[/url]. I'm not sure why you decided to argue this point so fervently when no-one suggested the opposite.[/quote]
Half of your post seems to be implying that the US has no right to even investigate or assuming that their investigation will result in an illegal charge against him. That's a totally illegitimate thing to assume. The political fallout for an investigation of that magnitude resulting in an illegal verdict would end the careers of pretty much anyone involved.

[quote]All of your posts in this thread, except the last few have been presenting falsehoods as facts!! That is not a perspective issue -- you've been making statements that are provably false, which is not "[i]just stating known facts[/i]".
[/quote]
The majority of what I've been posting is facts. The fact that I don't sensationalize them to a degree that you feel is more accurate is what you have a problem with (see the timeline of events for the rape investigation for the two of us. They are near identical except that yours just paints him as totally innocent and not having to follow EU law).

Here is a quote from you earlier:
[quote]
(800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists)[/quote]
He wasn't in solitary confinement or naked for 800 days. Clearly you've been posting nothing but facts in all of your posts from the beginning of this thread though. As I said, go back and read your posts if you're going to be so critical.

________________________________________________________________________
Questions you've asked, most of which I didn't answer because the answers are pointless/known or just saying exactly what your question was in reply to:

[quote][quote]He clearly left Sweden after the investigation started and refuses to return.[/quote]No, this is absolutely false (see above - he left after the case was closed). Where did you get this idea?[/quote][/quote]
^^^^ I don't know why there is a line break here.

No. [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341"]This is absolutely true.[/url] My statement that you call false is one of the most provably true statements in this entire thread.

[i]"Ms Rosander says the investigation into the molestation charge will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant."[/i]

[quote]Do you really think that destroying the 1961 vienna convention is less important than some celebrity sex scandal?[/quote]
This is begging the question that they'd actually invoke the law before having grounds to do so. I honestly don't think they'd do anything to the embassy while Assange is inside anyway unless Ecuador or Assange break international law. He'd have to re-enter English territory to get anywhere from the embassy/diplomatic vehicles, and they could just grab him then. Unless he's going to indefinitely run his life out of the Ecuadorian embassy, which I don't see him doing.

I also think that the actual threat was overblown. Not to say it wasn't threatening in any way, but the severity of it was overblown.

Here is the text
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."

More likely I think Assange is going to do/say something soon that's going to force Ecuador to withdraw asylum, and England will take him into custody then.

[quote]Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?[/quote]
[quote]If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged?[/quote]
Nobody, including Assange, has been charged with anything yet. Why are charges/guilt of NYT vs Assange relevant? They've both, to date, been treated identically, with the exception that one is totally paranoid.

[quote]
For some reason the line break up there ^^^ made me add a quote. I put it here to make it the least distracting.
[quote]None of this seems at all suspicious to you?[/quote]
I never said it didn't, but extraditing him to Sweden doesn't make him any less safe than he would have been in the UK really. Does it not seem suspicious that he'd so fervently avoid being questioned further on a sex scandal? You're ready to tout the assumption of innocence when it comes to Assange, but why shouldn't it be granted for a country that's taken no formal position on or has any provable direct influence on the events taking place yet?


There. That is every question you've asked of me in this thread. I'm sure you won't be satisfied with the answers, but I never expected you to be, which is why I avoided them. Edited by way2lazy2care
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For some reason the post I just posted hit format hell. Trying to repost to fix formatting, will remove whichever one doesn't work.

edit: no dice :( Edited by way2lazy2care
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345353915' post='4971014']
For some reason the post I just posted hit format hell. Trying to repost to fix formatting, will remove whichever one doesn't work.
[/quote]
[img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.png[/img] I think your formatting hell is the funniest thing from this thread
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since some folks don't know international law, L'll leave this link here ... this law gives England legal authority to dissolve diplomatic immunity, and go into the embassy .
"" Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 ""
https://www.google.com/search?q=Diplomatic+and+Consular+Premises+Act+of+1987
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1345368082' post='4971048']
Since some folks don't know international law, L'll leave this link here ... this law gives England legal authority to dissolve diplomatic immunity, and go into the embassy .
"" Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 ""
[url="https://www.google.com/search?q=Diplomatic+and+Consular+Premises+Act+of+1987"]https://www.google.c...ses Act of 1987[/url]
[/quote]

And will be the first time in history that the Vienna convention will be broken. Very bad press for UK.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is worth reading:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345495806' post='4971616']
This is worth reading:
[url="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition"]http://www.newstates...nge-extradition[/url]
[/quote]

Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.

I personally would feel alot safer in England than in Sweden, While it might be easier for England to send you off to the US Sweden is far more likely to just send you off. ... somewhere ... Edited by SimonForsman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1345496791' post='4971619']
Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.

I personally would feel alot safer in England than in Sweden, While it might be easier for England to send you off to the US Sweden is far more likely to just send you off. ... somewhere ...
[/quote]
While I won't dismiss it as impossible, I think if Sweden did it with such a high profile target it would have huge political fallout.

In regards to my link, mostly I posted it to show points 3/4. People underestimate the political impact/usefulness of guaranteeing that someone not be extradited to a country that you have an extradition treaty with. There's also been a good amount of assumptions that either an extradition request by the US wouldn't be reviewed thoroughly by the UK/Sweden (or granted just by virtue of being submitted) before a decision was come to.

I also think if Sweden were to try to just send him off somewhere, they'd probably just say, "Sure we won't extradite you!" then keep their part of the bargain by not extraditing him and sending him off somewhere. :P
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1345122817' post='4970152']
1: - Lets see how much you like if is some one puts YOUR life, and the lives of YOUR family in danger in the name of "freedom of information".
[/quote]

This is effect of propaganda. The families are in danger and Assange gets hanged on a square. Awesome.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1345496791' post='4971619']
Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.
[/quote]

The only two guys I could find via the webernet were taken in 2001, shortly after September 11. Interestingly, they are both now free and admittedly guilt-free by the governments involved.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of this is TLDR, but at least in my US living, wide-ranging, left leaning, web-focused news coverage Assange hasn't been getting too much bad press. They're detailing what the hub-bub is about, why he doesn't want to go to Sweden, and that the Sweeds don't want to just phone interview him.

The big issue from my perspective is the reporting of WikiLeaks. They have never really been portrayed as a whistleblower organization, but something more like Anonymous or people who steal credit card databases. Always negative, always focusing on the sensitive/illegal nature of the leaks, and not the content of them.

It's smart if the goal is to limit the information. Even if Assange is guilty as sin, that's not enough to take down a website...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Prinz Eugn' timestamp='1345937451' post='4973364']
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1345496791' post='4971619']
Allthough its still worth noting that sweden has, fairly recently sent 2 people off with the CIA to be tortured in egypt despite it being highly illegal to do so, We do what the US wants us to do and if it is illegal well... we just try not to let anyone know before its too late and then our security police just uses the "incompetence" defense as usual.
[/quote]

The only two guys I could find via the webernet were taken in 2001, shortly after September 11. Interestingly, they are both now free and admittedly guilt-free by the governments involved.
[/quote]
They also got paid nearly half a million dollars by the Swedish iirc.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0