I take back my earlier post, the foreign office is handling this terribly (so soon after the whole world loves us for the olympics) and south america hate us even more (most of the countries there seem to have already decided we're the bad guys over the falkland islands). I don't really care what happens to assange, if he goes down then someone else will just take his place. I just wish the FCO weren't being total bellends in handling thisEJ902Who gives a **** about south america anyway? If they want to act like bellends, let them act like bellends, they're just making themselves look stupid anyway.
Ecuador grants J. Assange asylum despite British threats
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Is he even facing any charges in the US?sonicareIt is rumored that the US might have a sealed indictment against Assange for espionage that they will unseal if/when Assange is extradited. The Justice Department has been conducting an ongoing criminal investigation into wikileaks.
So to answer your question, idk
Some glaring revelation about this whole issue is how the UK refused to extradite Augusto Pinochet one of the biggest human rights violators of South America and who's regime killed and disappeared thousands of innocent people yet they pursue to extradite Assange with determination because he didn't use a condom. Kind of put things into perspective and makes me clear as to how putrid this so called international "justice" system and the ones who run it are.kuraimenKuraimen put your tinfoil hat away.......... Comparing apples and oranges and talking compete bias rubbish as always. Augusto Pinochet was going to be extradited from the UK. It was then appealed because the 84 year old had following 2 stokes, suffered brain damage,serious asthmatic attacks and dementia. Under international law the UK government Deemed that he was unfit to stand trial. They gave a copy of the medical report to Spanish officials who leaked it to the news papers straight away http://www.tni.org/article/leaked-medical-report-augusto-pinochet Time Line. 8 October 1999 UK Magistrate Bartle verdict announced approving extradition. 14 October 1999 Chile makes representations to the Home Secretary suggesting that Pinochet's health has seriously deteriorated. 22 October 1999 Pinochet challenges the extradition order and a court is scheduled to hear his application for habeas corpus in March 2000. 5 January 2000 A panel of doctors appointed by the Home Secretary examines Pinochet. 11 January 2000 Straw rules Pinochet unfit to trial. 31 January 2000 Britain's High Court supports move to release Pinochet.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Some glaring revelation about this whole issue is how the UK refused to extradite Augusto Pinochet one of the biggest human rights violators of South America and who's regime killed and disappeared thousands of innocent people yet they pursue to extradite Assange with determination because he didn't use a condom. Kind of put things into perspective and makes me clear as to how putrid this so called international "justice" system and the ones who run it are.bozankoKuraimen put your tinfoil hat away.......... Comparing apples and oranges and talking compete bias rubbish as always. Augusto Pinochet was going to be extradited from the UK. It was then appealed because the 84 year old had following 2 stokes, suffered brain damage,serious asthmatic attacks and dementia. Under international law the UK government Deemed that he was unfit to stand trial. They gave a copy of the medical report to Spanish officials who leaked it to the news papers straight away http://www.tni.org/article/leaked-medical-report-augusto-pinochet Time Line. 8 October 1999 UK Magistrate Bartle verdict announced approving extradition. 14 October 1999 Chile makes representations to the Home Secretary suggesting that Pinochet's health has seriously deteriorated. 22 October 1999 Pinochet challenges the extradition order and a court is scheduled to hear his application for habeas corpus in March 2000. 5 January 2000 A panel of doctors appointed by the Home Secretary examines Pinochet. 11 January 2000 Straw rules Pinochet unfit to trial. 31 January 2000 Britain's High Court supports move to release Pinochet. Which bandodger are you? Would the same benefits are applied to Nazi war criminals or others like OBL and Saddam Hussein? I highly doubt it... Why hasn't Henry Kissinger stand trial for supporting dictatorships who murdered thousands? The whole international justice system is basically a joke.
If he's a rapist, I don't know why he's getting special treatment by being allowed to skirt arrest.juden41
It's because he convinced Ecuador that if Sweden gets their hands on him he will be extradited from Sweden to the US to face charges for publishing classified information. In other words, a huge excuse he is using to get out of facing his charges by getting his supporters to think the charges are just trumped up to get him in US hands.
In my opinion, if the conspiracy people are right and this is just an American-led plot to get Assange to the US to put him to death it would just be easier for them to send a sniper to take him out. Then they can just claim it was some rogue anti-Wikileaks shooter who got him. It's a lot easier than some very public rape trial that has nothing to do with leaking documents.
[QUOTE="juden41"]If he's a rapist, I don't know why he's getting special treatment by being allowed to skirt arrest.ad1x2
It's because he convinced Ecuador that if Sweden gets their hands on him he will be extradited from Sweden to the US to face charges for publishing classified information. In other words, a huge excuse he is using to get out of facing his charges by getting his supporters to think the charges are just trumped up to get him in US hands.
In my opinion, if the conspiracy people are right and this is just an American-led plot to get Assange to the US to put him to death it would just be easier for them to send a sniper to take him out. Then they can just claim it was some rogue anti-Wikileaks shooter who got him. It's a lot easier than some very public rape trial that has nothing to do with leaking documents.
Actually all Sweden wants to do officially is ask him some questions. However when asked if he would be sent to the US they wouldn't answer, which is why he refused. Then he asked if they could ask these questions while he's in the embassy and they refused. They clearly want to arrest him and frankly whether he gets sent to the US or not is moot to me as the reason he's wanted for arrest is an incredibly **** law that almost no other western country has. Not to mention the US is playing pretty fast and loose with the rules as they've held Manning for several hundred days longer than he's legally supposed to be held without trial.[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="juden41"]If he's a rapist, I don't know why he's getting special treatment by being allowed to skirt arrest.Ace6301
It's because he convinced Ecuador that if Sweden gets their hands on him he will be extradited from Sweden to the US to face charges for publishing classified information. In other words, a huge excuse he is using to get out of facing his charges by getting his supporters to think the charges are just trumped up to get him in US hands.
In my opinion, if the conspiracy people are right and this is just an American-led plot to get Assange to the US to put him to death it would just be easier for them to send a sniper to take him out. Then they can just claim it was some rogue anti-Wikileaks shooter who got him. It's a lot easier than some very public rape trial that has nothing to do with leaking documents.
Actually all Sweden wants to do officially is ask him some questions. However when asked if he would be sent to the US they wouldn't answer, which is why he refused. Then he asked if they could ask these questions while he's in the embassy and they refused. They clearly want to arrest him and frankly whether he gets sent to the US or not is moot to me as the reason he's wanted for arrest is an incredibly **** law that almost no other western country has. Not to mention the US is playing pretty fast and loose with the rules as they've held Manning for several hundred days longer than he's legally supposed to be held without trial. If he is wanted for questioning then he might as well come in for questioning. The US has no real case against Assange for what he did. You really can't charge a non-citizen who wasn't even in the US at the time with treason against the US. At worse, if they can prove something he published caused the deaths of coalition forces they could try to charge him with that but it would still be pretty difficult. As for Manning, he isn't a civilian, he is a Soldier in the US Army. Which means some of the protections you may have as a civilian don't apply to him. The Sixth Amendment does still apply to troops but exceptions can be made in certain situations. In Manning's case, if laws are being broken in his detention his lawyer needs to bring it up to the proper authorities.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]Actually all Sweden wants to do officially is ask him some questions. However when asked if he would be sent to the US they wouldn't answer, which is why he refused. Then he asked if they could ask these questions while he's in the embassy and they refused. They clearly want to arrest him and frankly whether he gets sent to the US or not is moot to me as the reason he's wanted for arrest is an incredibly **** law that almost no other western country has. Not to mention the US is playing pretty fast and loose with the rules as they've held Manning for several hundred days longer than he's legally supposed to be held without trial. If he is wanted for questioning then he might as well come in for questioning. The US has no real case against Assange for what he did. You really can't charge a non-citizen who wasn't even in the US at the time with treason against the US. At worse, if they can prove something he published caused the deaths of coalition forces they could try to charge him with that but it would still be pretty difficult. As for Manning, he isn't a civilian, he is a Soldier in the US Army. Which means some of the protections you may have as a civilian don't apply to him. The Sixth Amendment does still apply to troops but exceptions can be made in certain situations. In Manning's case, if laws are being broken in his detention his lawyer needs to bring it up to the proper authorities. The charges would be espionage, not treason. The punishment is largely the same. He's accepted to answer questions, just from his confines of the embassy. They refused. Doesn't that seem a little odd if it's just questions they want to ask? So you're perfectly fine with the treatment these two are getting just because "it's the law"? People don't feel it being the law is enough to protect other countries from criticism so why then when this happens in the western world it's suddenly an acceptable excuse.It's because he convinced Ecuador that if Sweden gets their hands on him he will be extradited from Sweden to the US to face charges for publishing classified information. In other words, a huge excuse he is using to get out of facing his charges by getting his supporters to think the charges are just trumped up to get him in US hands.
In my opinion, if the conspiracy people are right and this is just an American-led plot to get Assange to the US to put him to death it would just be easier for them to send a sniper to take him out. Then they can just claim it was some rogue anti-Wikileaks shooter who got him. It's a lot easier than some very public rape trial that has nothing to do with leaking documents.
ad1x2
If he's being charged with rape, then charge him with rape and have him tried in Sweden. Why extradite him to the US? Because it's not about rape.Honestly, I could care less if the US even tries to get him. Manning was easy to charge because he signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of being granted a security clearance that is good for 70 years stating he would not disclose classified information. Unfortunately for him, not only did he decide to break that agreement after being threatened with being discharged for punching a female Soldier in the face (a lot of Manning's supporters conveniently leave out this fact) but he BRAGGED about breaking that agreement on a public website to a guy who later turned him in.
Assange is much harder to charge for leaking classified information since he isn't a US citizen and neither him nor his servers are on American soil. But he IS being charged with sexual crimes. Fact of the matter is no one should be above the law no matter how much of a "hero" people see him as. If he is innocent then he needs to prove he is innocent. If he is guilty then he needs to face his punishment. But either way he is doing nothing more than making himself look more guilty and hiding behind a claim that Sweden will just send him to American so he can be fed to the wolves.
ad1x2
Which bandodger are you? Would the same benefits are applied to Nazi war criminals or others like OBL and Saddam Hussein? I highly doubt it... Why hasn't Henry Kissinger stand trial for supporting dictatorships who murdered thousands? The whole international justice system is basically a joke.kuraimenTypical response i would expect from a Conspiracy theorist. Presented with some facts to prove your initial point mute and totally unfounded, you quickly go running off spouting hypothetical situations that don't exist and retort with yet more questions to deviate from the the subject you clearly know very little about. The international justice system may seem a joke i suppose if your only source of info, is most probably based on bias from crack pot conspiracy sites or state sponsored news stations :).
If he's being charged with rape, then charge him with rape and have him tried in Sweden. Why extradite him to the US? Because it's not about rape.thebest31406That`s because NO one has actually said if US wants him extradited him, Assange and his legal team have demanded to know if the US intend to in the future. Using this as an excuse for him not to stand trial in Sweden. Both the US and Sweden have refused to comment, that is FACT. Why should they reply to a wanted man who refused to follow law in the country he is staying in after he has exhausted all the legal routes available to him to avoid facing his accusations any way. Will the US at some point want to extradite him may be so i don't know, but as a wanted man with an international arrest warrant out for him from Sweden and some one who has jumped bail from the high Court in the UK, id suggest he does not have the right to demand any thing from any one even to know what the US has possibly got planned for him. Its all smoke and mirrors used by his defense and blind followers to get out of following justice. Just out of interests if the two women are telling the truth about his sexual misconduct , what happened to their freedom and justice from the so called savior of justice? Assange should man up go to court with the world watching and prove he is innocent, after all the world is watching now, not hide like a criminal.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Which bandodger are you? Would the same benefits are applied to Nazi war criminals or others like OBL and Saddam Hussein? I highly doubt it... Why hasn't Henry Kissinger stand trial for supporting dictatorships who murdered thousands? The whole international justice system is basically a joke.bozankoTypical response i would expect from a Conspiracy theorist. Presented with some facts to prove your initial point mute and totally unfounded, you quickly go running off spouting hypothetical situations that don't exist and retort with yet more questions to deviate from the the subject you clearly know very little about. The international justice system may seem a joke i suppose if your only source of info, is most probably based on bias from crack pot conspiracy sites or state sponsored news stations :).
If he's being charged with rape, then charge him with rape and have him tried in Sweden. Why extradite him to the US? Because it's not about rape.thebest31406That`s because NO one has actually said if US wants him extradited him, Assange and his legal team have demanded to know if the US intend to in the future. Using this as an excuse for him not to stand trial in Sweden. Both the US and Sweden have refused to comment, that is FACT. Why should they reply to a wanted man who refused to follow law in the country he is staying in after he has exhausted all the legal routes available to him to avoid facing his accusations any way. Will the US at some point want to extradite him may be so i don't know, but as a wanted man with an international arrest warrant out for him from Sweden and some one who has jumped bail from the high Court in the UK, id suggest he does not have the right to demand any thing from any one even to know what the US has possibly got planned for him. Its all smoke and mirrors used by his defense and blind followers to get out of following justice. Just out of interests if the two women are telling the truth about his sexual misconduct , what happened to their freedom and justice from the so called savior of justice? Assange should man up go to court with the world watching and prove he is innocent, after all the world is watching now, not hide like a criminal. "Prove to the world" "The world is watching" The guy is a reporter, not a political leader or a kid's role-model. The US wants to charge him with espionage. Sweden is a US client state which would be willing to extradite him if given the orders - and many folks are quite confident they' ll be given the orders. And this sex thing wasn't an issue until after certain material was leaked, so now there's a whole international hunt based on pure 'he said/she said'. So, knowing all of this, it would be foolish of him not to seek asylum. He's not a political figure, a role model, a head of state or a civil rights leader, so it doesn't matter what the world personally thinks about him.
The international justice system may seem a joke i suppose if your only source of info, is most probably based on bias from crack pot conspiracy sites or state sponsored news stations :).bozankoAnyone with any knowledge of the international justice system knows it's a joke. Hell this case is a great example of how it's a joke, it's literally all politics and trying to please other countries. He's broken no law in the UK and the UK was perfectly fine with being there until fairly recently and of course that has now changed. International justice is extremely political and just as inconsistent on how and why they extradict people. [QUOTE="bozanko"]That`s because NO one has actually said if US wants him extradited him, Assange and his legal team have demanded to know if the US intend to in the future. Using this as an excuse for him not to stand trial in Sweden. Both the US and Sweden have refused to comment, that is FACT. Why should they reply to a wanted man who refused to follow law in the country he is staying in after he has exhausted all the legal routes available to him to avoid facing his accusations any way. Assange has been following the law this entire time. He followed UK law until they decided to extradict him and he's been following international asylum laws since he went to the Ecuadorian embassy. The only law he's assumed to be afoul of is Swedish. Frankly were I in his shoes I would be extremely fearful of extradiction to the US as well. The fact they refuse to comment or say whether he will be given to the US should be enough for a man in his position to assume the worse. It's clear however you care nothing about a person being innocent until proven guilty, preferring to remove their rights at the first sign of an accusation.
Ecuador has a right to do as they please. But would they want to annoy the UK? What motivation would they have?TheWalkingGhostMuch of South America dislikes the US and the UK for various past transgressions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just Ecuador giving both the middle finger and knowing that neither will have the balls to do something with any real impact.
[QUOTE="bozanko"]The international justice system may seem a joke i suppose if your only source of info, is most probably based on bias from crack pot conspiracy sites or state sponsored news stations :).Ace6301Anyone with any knowledge of the international justice system knows it's a joke. Hell this case is a great example of how it's a joke, it's literally all politics and trying to please other countries. He's broken no law in the UK and the UK was perfectly fine with being there until fairly recently and of course that has now changed. International justice is extremely political and just as inconsistent on how and why they extradict people.
That`s because NO one has actually said if US wants him extradited him, Assange and his legal team have demanded to know if the US intend to in the future. Using this as an excuse for him not to stand trial in Sweden. Both the US and Sweden have refused to comment, that is FACT. Why should they reply to a wanted man who refused to follow law in the country he is staying in after he has exhausted all the legal routes available to him to avoid facing his accusations any way.bozankoAssange has been following the law this entire time. He followed UK law until they decided to extradict him and he's been following international asylum laws since he went to the Ecuadorian embassy. The only law he's assumed to be afoul of is Swedish. Frankly were I in his shoes I would be extremely fearful of extradiction to the US as well. The fact they refuse to comment or say whether he will be given to the US should be enough for a man in his position to assume the worse. It's clear however you care nothing about a person being innocent until proven guilty, preferring to remove their rights at the first sign of an accusation.
Ecuador has a right to do as they please. But would they want to annoy the UK? What motivation would they have?TheWalkingGhostMuch of South America dislikes the US and the UK for various past transgressions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just Ecuador giving both the middle finger and knowing that neither will have the balls to do something with any real impact.
Good post. The whole situation is dodgy as hell.
I take back my earlier post, the foreign office is handling this terribly (so soon after the whole world loves us for the olympics) and south america hate us even more (most of the countries there seem to have already decided we're the bad guys over the falkland islands). I don't really care what happens to assange, if he goes down then someone else will just take his place. I just wish the FCO weren't being total bellends in handling thisEJ902agreed,but then what did I expect from my country?
He's broken no law in the UK and the UK was perfectly fine with being there until fairly recently and of course that has now changed. International justice is extremely political and just as inconsistent on how and why they extradict people.Ace6301Wrong! He has been fighting this for the past 2 years, the only reason it has now come to this is that Assanage has exhausted all his attempts, to fight it through the courts. Assanage appealing through different courts in this time and decided to make a run for Ecuador's London embassy when he we posted for bail fearing he would not win. Assange has already skipped UK High Court bail = illegal (Broken the law in the UK). The UK was issued with an International arrest warrant , issued by Sweden, i suppose they should have refused that?
Assange has been following the law this entire time. He followed UK law until they decided to extradict him and he's been following international asylum laws since he went to the Ecuadorian embassy. The only law he's assumed to be afoul of is Swedish. Ace6301Wrong Assanage was told he would be extradited in August 2010, he then handed him self in to the police! He then fought it through the courts until it was not going the way he wanted. Assange has broken UK law by skipping bail set by the high court.
It's clear however you care nothing about a person being innocent until proven guilty, preferring to remove their rights at the first sign of an accusation. Ace6301Please explain this? so your saying that is some one is accused of a crime has a right to refuse to go be questioned as it violates their rights as they are innocent until proved guilty? Any innocent person would be more than happy to prove their innocence, id love to see you say that to victims families of murders etc. Sorry miss Brown we cant continue our investigation as it may violate the accused rights if we force him to be questioned regarding the allegations.
I'm pretty sure the accusations are not true and probably a product of CIA work in Sweden.
and yet Ecuador is one of the worst country in term of freedom of speechhippiesanta
Would that have been helped by this in 63?
Ecuador A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
[QUOTE="hippiesanta"]and yet Ecuador is one of the worst country in term of freedom of speechtenaka2
Would that have been helped by this in 63?
Ecuador A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
Why bring this up? Ecuador has been a democracy since 1979. It's current human rights violations have nothing to do with us and are more to do with cuts to the benefits of public service workers. Why try to pass the buck to the US in an attempt to excuse what Ecuador is doing?[QUOTE="tenaka2"][QUOTE="hippiesanta"]and yet Ecuador is one of the worst country in term of freedom of speechTheWalkingGhost
Would that have been helped by this in 63?
Ecuador A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
Why bring this up? Ecuador has been a democracy since 1979. It's current human rights violations have nothing to do with us and are more to do with cuts to the benefits of public service workers. Why try to pass the buck to the US in an attempt to excuse what Ecuador is doing?Just pointing out that the U.S. messes with loads of other governments and then wonder why people don't like it.
Why bring this up? Ecuador has been a democracy since 1979. It's current human rights violations have nothing to do with us and are more to do with cuts to the benefits of public service workers. Why try to pass the buck to the US in an attempt to excuse what Ecuador is doing?[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]
Would that have been helped by this in 63?
Ecuador A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
tenaka2
Just pointing out that the U.S. messes with loads of other governments and then wonder why people don't like it.
If we're talking history than so has everyone other country just about.......I like how Assange supporters see Ecuador as a champion of free speech and bask in their own hypocrisy considering President Correra's stance towards independent media and how the media potray him.
Honestly Assange is a hypocritical oaf and a man who uses his charisma to save his own skin and turns his back on the ideologies he attempts to champion to not be extradited.
I honestly think the man is a hypocrite, and people like in this topic seem far too dimwitted and hypnotised to see.
Besides Wikileaks have agreed to withheld names that put people in danger and no one has been hurt by their leaks.kuraimenFunny so are you saying that Assange did not request payment from amnesty International? Are you also claiming that people are not hurt by leaks of this nature for dealing with the USA and ALLIES? The AIHRC published figures showing that executions had soared in the first seven months of 2010 to 197, from a total of 225 in all of 2009. The victims were often persons who supported the Afghan government, or their family members, who may have come into contact with the U.S. or other international forces Annual report march 2011.... The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/March%20PoC%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf "In 2010, in the southern region, the AIHRC and UNAMA HR recorded three times as many civilians killed in assassinations and executions as in 2009 (a 204 per cent increase) "
[QUOTE="tenaka2"][QUOTE="hippiesanta"]and yet Ecuador is one of the worst country in term of freedom of speechTheWalkingGhost
Would that have been helped by this in 63?
Ecuador A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
Why bring this up? Ecuador has been a democracy since 1979. It's current human rights violations have nothing to do with us and are more to do with cuts to the benefits of public service workers. Why try to pass the buck to the US in an attempt to excuse what Ecuador is doing?Because Assange supporters have been roped into this method of thinking that the US is evil, yet in the case of the extradition have never really gotten involved but deplored Ecuador's attitude.
Honestly Ecuador's another case of the "imperial" powers are bad so we blame them cause we are too dimwitted to actually run ourselves and sort out our own problems for a change.Its their scape goat for any negative press against them that everyones imperialist and want to control them when on the other hand people are just calling them out for their own stupidity and faux crusades in vein attempts to keep peoples minds off the real probelsm within their country.
A good example of this is the Argentine Junta invading the Falklands as a method to save face and gain public support within a faultering regime.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Besides Wikileaks have agreed to withheld names that put people in danger and no one has been hurt by their leaks.bozankoFunny so are you saying that Assange did not request payment from amnesty International? Are you also claiming that people are not hurt by leaks of this nature for dealing with the USA and ALLIES? The AIHRC published figures showing that executions had soared in the first seven months of 2010 to 197, from a total of 225 in all of 2009. The victims were often persons who supported the Afghan government, or their family members, who may have come into contact with the U.S. or other international forces Yearly report.... The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/March%20PoC%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf "In 2010, in the southern region, the AIHRC and UNAMA HR recorded three times as many civilians killed in assassinations and executions as in 2009 (a 204 per cent increase) " Wikileaks asked money to do the task of reviewing the documents for potential victims. In the end the news agencies worked on that by their own and the documents which were not revisited by the US government were not released. Also the US government itself said the leaks didn't cause any harm to anyone. Using those statistics to somehow correlate the released documents with deaths is pretty dumb buddy specially when the US government itself contradicts what you're saying.
To be sure. Personally I think Assange is doing everything for his own selfish reasons and not because he stands for anything. But most people are too naive or stupid to see through the man.I like how Assange supporters see Ecuador as a champion of free speech and bask in their own hypocrisy considering President Correra's stance towards independent media and how the media potray him.
Honestly Assange is a hypocritical oaf and a man who uses his charisma to save his own skin and turns his back on the ideologies he attempts to champion to not be extradited.
I honestly think the man is a hypocrite, and people like in this topic seem far too dimwitted and hypnotised to see.
razgriz_101
[QUOTE="bozanko"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Besides Wikileaks have agreed to withheld names that put people in danger and no one has been hurt by their leaks.kuraimenFunny so are you saying that Assange did not request payment from amnesty International? Are you also claiming that people are not hurt by leaks of this nature for dealing with the USA and ALLIES? The AIHRC published figures showing that executions had soared in the first seven months of 2010 to 197, from a total of 225 in all of 2009. The victims were often persons who supported the Afghan government, or their family members, who may have come into contact with the U.S. or other international forces Yearly report.... The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/March%20PoC%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf "In 2010, in the southern region, the AIHRC and UNAMA HR recorded three times as many civilians killed in assassinations and executions as in 2009 (a 204 per cent increase) " Wikileaks asked money to do the task of reviewing the documents for potential victims. In the end the news agencies worked on that by their own and the documents which were not revisited by the US government were not released. Also the US government itself said the leaks didn't cause any harm to anyone. Using those statistics to somehow correlate the released documents with deaths is pretty dumb buddy specially when the US government itself contradicts what you're saying. lol.....apologist.
Also the US government itself said the leaks didn't cause any harm to anyone. Using those statistics to somehow correlate the released documents with deaths is pretty dumb buddy specially when the US government itself contradicts what you're saying. kuraimenPlease provide verified evidence/proof that US government have officially stated that the leaks did not cause any harm to anyone. Because your claim is currently unfounded. Even if one single person is killed as the result of any leak, that is murder and blood on his hands.
[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]To be sure. Personally I think Assange is doing everything for his own selfish reasons and not because he stands for anything. But most people are too naive or stupid to see through the man.I like how Assange supporters see Ecuador as a champion of free speech and bask in their own hypocrisy considering President Correra's stance towards independent media and how the media potray him.
Honestly Assange is a hypocritical oaf and a man who uses his charisma to save his own skin and turns his back on the ideologies he attempts to champion to not be extradited.
I honestly think the man is a hypocrite, and people like in this topic seem far too dimwitted and hypnotised to see.
LJS9502_basic
Exactly, he may claim to be a people person, but when you look in his history and a few other things, he's not the legitimate people person people think he is.Hi smug attitude yesterday is a perfect example of him being a self serving hypocrite.Also his paranoia was brilliant with how he acted on that balcony.
I really have no time for him at all to be brutally honest.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Wikileaks asked money to do the task of reviewing the documents for potential victims. In the end the news agencies worked on that by their own and the documents which were not revisited by the US government were not released. Also the US government itself said the leaks didn't cause any harm to anyone. Using those statistics to somehow correlate the released documents with deaths is pretty dumb buddy specially when the US government itself contradicts what you're saying. kuraimenlol.....apologist. lol... dumbass
nah we've seen on SW and in this topic the only naive dumbass is yourself.
Much like your naive fanboy centric behaviour on SW pertaining to Sony, you show equal amounts of naivity and dimwitted behaviour when trying to argue Assange is in the right for basically bail jumping which itself is a crime...but because of Wikileaks he should somehow be above the law? please he's a citizen like you and me, he should not gain diffrent treatment.
[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]To be sure. Personally I think Assange is doing everything for his own selfish reasons and not because he stands for anything. But most people are too naive or stupid to see through the man. This is how I feel about him as well. I find his whole attitude and what has happened to be very problematic, particularly in light of what he and Wikileaks is supposed to stand for.I like how Assange supporters see Ecuador as a champion of free speech and bask in their own hypocrisy considering President Correra's stance towards independent media and how the media potray him.
Honestly Assange is a hypocritical oaf and a man who uses his charisma to save his own skin and turns his back on the ideologies he attempts to champion to not be extradited.
I honestly think the man is a hypocrite, and people like in this topic seem far too dimwitted and hypnotised to see.
LJS9502_basic
Wikileaks asked money to do the task of reviewing the documents for potential victims. In the end the news agencies worked on that by their own and the documents which were not revisited by the US government were not released. Also the US government itself said the leaks didn't cause any harm to anyone. Using those statistics to somehow correlate the released documents with deaths is pretty dumb buddy specially when the US government itself contradicts what you're saying. kuraimen
LOL at kuraimen justifying extortion.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment