Poetry Forum

Full Version: wikileaks founder such a nice guy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
well,one can concentrate on the leaks and forget about the rest,i think it's good we finally get some details about bullying governments,doing deals and favours only to protect their weapons sales,all this should be open from the start and we should find a new way of dealing with eachother
(12-14-2010, 08:59 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]I look at it in the sense that it leaked documents that were of some relevance to dealings with governments around the world. Surely the usefulness of them is debatable but wikileaks was the first to become famous and draw attention and much needed support.

Sure, it wasn't run perfectly. But they had a good thing going on and I still think they do. I don't care about all the ballsy speeches that some people give out, I just like to see someone actually releasing stuff that isn't meant to be released. If you think that's a failure then please yourself.
as i said, i don't see how being famous for doing something wrong (as the core crew of wikileaks stated) can be seen as successful. if all you want is to see released documents regardless of accountability then rock on, wiki was great at doing that. we could all do that. i could tell stories of people and show emails left right and centre, to claim the right to do something without accountability is not success.

and wiki leaks was not only not the first it wasn't even close to being the first. leaks have been famously leaked since the media had an outlet. you only have to look at watergate at noriago at the arns sold by the cia to nicaragua. they will never bring a president down as the watergate leaks did. now that was real journalism. i've said my point on more than one occassion so i'll make this my last one in this thread. everyone, every single person on the planet should be accountable for their actions. he deemed/s himself above this value. the man is a parasitic piece of shit that destroyed what could have been a great organisation.
if you would do the same today,leak the watergate papers,you probably would get locked up for violating the secrecy act or national security violations
no you wouldn't
there was a ruling that some state secrets can be published if it's felt that the people have a right to know.
the pentagon took one paper to court for publishing papers of a similar nature and lost. the watergate tapes were the illegal aspect of the story, tapes made by the gov. just the same as if a plot to illegally tape people were uncovered today by a decent journalist. it would get published.
yes but the ruling is made by the state,they change the rules all the time,for the worst,freedom of expression gets more difficult all the time
the gov is the state the court often defies the state. and if you look back at history you'll see freedom of speech and the press as two of the freedoms which have expanded.

mrmod

(12-15-2010, 12:44 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]Bail was set at 200,000 pounds (...)

is it just me or does that seem a bit expensive, considering the crimes he is being charged for? I don't know the law on bails...

Duke Skymocker

in the USA you have to pay 10% of what the bail's set at to be released (if it were $100k you'd have to pay $10k). Then, if you "skip" on your bail and don't show up for court the full amount is taken from whoever bailed you out. at which point you have more charges filed against you & the cops come-a-knockin'.

I'm just wondering if that's the norm in other countries?

thethingy

(12-15-2010, 03:05 AM)Duke Skymocker Wrote: [ -> ]in the USA you have to pay 10% of what the bail's set at to be released (if it were $100k you'd have to pay $10k). Then, if you "skip" on your bail and don't show up for court the full amount is taken from whoever bailed you out. at which point you have more charges filed against you & the cops come-a-knockin'.

I'm just wondering if that's the norm in other countries?

The UK (England & Wales) you pay 0%, but you have to log documents showing that should you skip town then someone will loose the value of the bail amount, typically you would get someone to go to a police station with a bank statement or house deed.
(12-15-2010, 12:44 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]According to the latest British polls, 41% support Assange, while 30% are against him. The rest don't know.

Anyhow, he got released on bail from jail today. Bail was set at 200,000 pounds, and he had to surrender his passport and agree to wear an electronic GPS ankle bracelet.

UK court frees WikiLeaks' Assange on bail

Julian Assange granted bail: live updates
he's not free yet. possibly not for another 48 hours and then only under strict rules. two four hour curfews a day, an tag, report to the police station every day, surrender his passport, pay up front which is almost unheard of in the uk. even then he may not be released the swedish courts are saying he's up for rape and flight risk and an alien in the uk.

to those querying the bail:

Mr. Stephens said the court was demanding 200,000 pounds in bail up front before Mr. Assange could be freed.

as for the poll, they apparently asked a few people walking past the court lmao. unless you can show the number of people asked vf? (i saw them say so on the news)
so if what the women say is true, it's rape then.

thethingy

(12-15-2010, 10:12 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]so if what the women say is true, it's rape then.

yip, consent can be withdrawn at any time, the only surprising thing there is that some countries & states take the view that once consent is given then what will be will be regardless of how painful it may get.
i thought so, i was always under the impression that even if sex has been initiated and the woman asks for it to stop the guy had to stop.
and the same with the condom thing, wear one or you don't have my permission.

like i say, personally i don't believe that happened but if allegations are made and charges brought, it would be extremely unfair to women in general not to take the allegations seriously. specially if there's two complainants, that they know each other is irrelevant at this stage, should he be found not guilty and pursue compensation that's when the fact they know each other become relevant.
i agree,the case should be followed up,but not in the way it has been

thethingy

(12-15-2010, 02:40 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]I found this bit quite interesting:

many have pointed critically to the fact that Assange's accusers didn't immediately go to the police. In fact, one threw a dinner party for him the night after the alleged rape and the other went to breakfast with him the morning after the alleged encounter.

You know I believe there story, they got together and then compared notes of him after the event(s) then discovered that he used the same procedure on both, the girls aren't saying he is a vicious violent man merely he refused to use a rubber despite being told too and that happens to constitute rape in Europe, wouldn't be surprised if more of his conquests come out of the woodwork shortly and you know what?, if a girl is willing to let you fuck her then the least you can do is cover up if that's what she wants..................................

thethingy

(12-15-2010, 03:15 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]It is my suspicion that neither of the two women considered herself to have been raped, until they talked to each other on the phone, and discovered that Julian Assange was a two-timing bastard who had slept with both of them.

absolutely, I'd bet nether has lost a nights sleep over it either, but that don't help him if what they say is true....................
(12-15-2010, 02:40 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-15-2010, 08:55 AM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/201...pe_assange
I found this bit quite interesting:

many have pointed critically to the fact that Assange's accusers didn't immediately go to the police. In fact, one threw a dinner party for him the night after the alleged rape and the other went to breakfast with him the morning after the alleged encounter.

its' common for victims of sex crimes to act normally for a period of time before going to the police. read some psychology reports about it. it even says so in the link you got that tidbit from, sometimes it's best not to post a quote out of context.
Quote: from vf's link
Speaking of myths about "real" victims, many have pointed critically to the fact that Assange's accusers didn't immediately go to the police. In fact, one threw a dinner party for him the night after the alleged rape and the other went to breakfast with him the morning after the alleged encounter. Is this sort of behavior unusual?

It may seem counterintuitive but it is not unusual for a victim to want to normalize the situation. Essentially the victim is prey to self-doubt.

while i agree it's unlikely he raped them i don't have all the facts. and neither does anyone else. to try him in a forum would be ludicrous.

charges were brought. as such he should face them.

if he doesn't it sets a precedent for all women who are victims of sex crimes to be ignored.

at the end of the day. assange has been more less outed as a liar so taking his word would be silly despite what we think.

to judge the women as liars would be silly despite what we think.

for him to expect special treatment over these allegations is also ludicrous.
and a court case concerning people and charges you know nothing about but hearsay makes your suspicions of no-account to the facts, which are; he's been charged with two sex crimes. fact; sex crimes are illegal, fact; if he's not guilty he has a chance of proving it. fact he refused to face his accusers at the proper place, in court.

even slappers have a right to change their minds in sweden or demand the man use a condom. if she demand that and he didn't he's guilty, if one of them asked him to stop and he didn't, he's guilty of rape (under swedish law of course. ) if people think a women doesn't have the right to change her mind during sex then they as far as i can tell condone rape.

Duke Skymocker

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11997137

Quote:Bail appeal for Wikileaks founder Assange on Thursday

Swedish prosecutors will make their appeal against bail for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at the High Court on Thursday.

The 39-year-old was granted bail at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday on the condition he provides sureties of £240,000 in cash.

But he was forced to remain in Wandsworth Prison pending the appeal...

mrmod

(12-15-2010, 11:54 PM)Duke Skymocker Wrote: [ -> ]But he was forced to remain in Wandsworth Prison pending the appeal...

So he's still not on bail? Pfftt...Dodgy
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7