Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

1…89111314…40

Comments

  • #302
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I make that claim on the basis of what seamus said, that it doesn't make sense that someone with two rapes in his past would make an enemy as powerful as an American government by running a website that champions revealing all information.

    Perhaps you should look into what can constitute a rape in Sweden. It seems people are unsure about what the actual allegations are.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    "What's the point in highlighting government criminality if you cannot face up to your own"
    and "frame job my arse"
    and "I'll be delighted to see him taken back to Sweden to face justice"
    All of these statements presume guilt.

    No they don't.These statements make it clear that he should cooperate with the authorities and fight to clear his name, legitimately.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you're missing the point here. There is a difference between trying to clear your name when a mistake has been made and trying to clear it when a very powerful organisation is doing everything in its power to make sure you don't. When you are being framed the case against you will not be "properly proceeded".

    Again, where is the proof that he is being framed? Why do you assume that the women who made allegations against him are lying, falsely accusing him? Why don't you presume them innocent, instead you have repeatedly insinuated they are part of some global conspiracy.


  • #303
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    orourkeda wrote: »
    On one hand there seems to be something that's not quite right about this whole wikileaks operation. I can't quite put my finger on what it is yet.

    On the other hand, why should he be invited to shut the f*ck up as you suggest? Isn't this the problem with the world?

    You'll find that wherever theres a boot on the neck of some unfortunate soul, Flutter will be there with boot polish at hand.


  • #304
    ciagr297
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 428 ✭✭ciagr297


    is this the only warrant out for him? seems odd that the us govt has not managed to get any charges related specifically to the Wikileaks site or materials posted on it, raised against him


  • #305
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    laugh wrote: »
    Lol prinz, how hard would it be for the American or another government have him accused of sexual assault? Easy in the extreme.

    How easy it would be to have one/two girls do something consensual with him and then press charges?
    The whole things reminds me of when poor Wikus Van De Merwe was said to have had sex with a prawn.


  • #306
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    smk89 wrote: »
    Well enjoy the boot on your face for eternity!


    Indeed, because I felt very downtrodden by the thoughts of the United States ambassador to Libya on what they thought of Ghadaffi. Its so good to have those shackles free.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    biko wrote: »
    The whole things reminds me of when poor Wikus Van De Merwe was said to have had sex with a prawn.

    Fookin' lies. :pac:

    Oh well, it was either him being killed by a nutjob or getting arrested anyways.

    He should've stuck to uploading LOLcats on youtube, that's what the internet is really about.


  • #308
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd say he knew it was coming. He should be glad they didn't assassinate him.
    its early days yet. :pac:


  • #309
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    What do you mean he's a bollix? What has he done specifically that would warrant such an immature response from you? What, he sets up a website that leaks documents showing governmental criminality and that makes him a bollix?
    Wow! Such profundity.

    Suffice to say that if it wasn't the charges against Assange, there would be some other excuse....
    Prinz wrote:
    I hate Wikileaks. There I said it. No time for them, their spokespeople or their deeds.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69296783&postcount=3


  • #310
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    Indeed, because I felt very downtrodden by the thoughts of the United States ambassador to Libya on what they thought of Ghadaffi. Its so good to have those shackles free.

    Nice selective argument. It's all very well condemning wikileaks but in truth they are really the only organisation out there willing to bring governments to any kind of accountability.

    If some of you had your way we would all be mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed shít once in a while, and all you can do is condemn without offering up any kind of substitute, but I'd expect no less from the some of the boot licking establishment can do no wrong lackies around these parts.


  • #311
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,916 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    happyfriday wrote: »
    Finding this whole thing highly suspicious. As much as I hate to say it, this really has conspiracy written all over it. As said above better to discredit him than have him assassinated and make him a martyr.

    The fact that he got secret cables makes the whole process of trying to discredit him virtually impossible. The very first accusation that could be levelled at the people trying to discredit him will be why didn't you keep your own cables secret?

    Secondly, how on earth can a website like wikileaks gain access to classified documentation without a) Computer Hacking or b) someone within was leaking documents.

    The sexual assault is a separate issue and should be taken on it's merits and should be judhed on the validity of the evidence provided. Whether it's a possible conspiracy or there is something in it will reveal itself over time.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ciagr297 wrote: »
    is this the only warrant out for him? seems odd that the us govt has not managed to get any charges related specifically to the Wikileaks site or materials posted on it, raised against him
    I'm sure they're attempting to come up with something. Can't be treason, it's not terrorism (regardless of how many politicians try to call it such), so there are a limited amount of charges they can bring for actions perpetrated on foreign soil by a foreign national.


  • #313
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    Suffice to say that if it wasn't the charges against Assange, there would be some other excuse....

    And? I must be part of the global conspiracy too. I, for one, can take each on their merits separately. Unlike some people it seems.


  • #314
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    Perhaps you should look into what can constitute a rape in Sweden. It seems people are unsure about what the actual allegations are.

    No they don't.These statements make it clear that he should cooperate with the authorities and fight to clear his name, legitimately.

    Again, where is the proof that he is being framed? Why do you assume that the women who made allegations against him are lying, falsely accusing him? Why don't you presume them innocent, instead you have repeatedly insinuated they are part of some global conspiracy.

    Asking me for proof of his innocence is just ridiculous tbh. I'm not saying he's definitely innocent, I'm trying to explain why someone who was innocent and being framed by powerful people would be reluctant to face fraudulent charges. Ignoring for a moment whether he is actually guilty or not, and remembering that he has admitted having sex with these women, can you understand someone being reluctant to face fraudulent charges?


  • #315
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    He should've stuck to uploading LOLcats on youtube, that's what the internet is really about.

    ...only approved lolcats....careful now....


  • #316
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    prinz wrote: »
    And? I must be part of the global conspiracy too. I, for one, can take each on their merits separately. Unlike some people it seems.

    The only time you accept something on it's merits is when it suits your argument, seen enough of your shíte on here to know when to spot it.


  • #317
    GizAGoOfYerGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭GizAGoOfYerGee


    prinz wrote: »
    fleeing from a police investigation.

    Goes to show how little you know about this case.


  • #318
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    smk89 wrote: »
    Well enjoy the boot on your face for eternity!


    I'm sorry, it's quite cold here and I haven't spooled up to full capacity, could you expand on that post please.

    Like, what does it mean


  • #319
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    karma_ wrote: »
    Nice selective argument. It's all very well condemning wikileaks but in truth they are really the only organisation out there willing to bring governments to any kind of accountability.

    If some of you had your way we would all be mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed shít once in a while, and all you can do is condemn without offering up any kind of substitute, but I'd expect no less from the some of the boot licking establishment can do no wrong lackies around these parts.


    I just happen to think that there was absolutely no point in leaking secret diplomatic correspondence. Some of the videos he released did serve a purpose but the cablegate affair was totally pointless, its been like gossip on a street corner on a Sunday morning.

    I wish before people say its a conspiracy they would look at the character of the man portrayed by people who worked closely on the wikileaks project. Does not put him in a great light.

    And as for being fed s**t, I just come on boards and read a few posts when I want that :D


  • #320
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    can you understand someone being reluctant to face fraudulent charges?

    Yes, I can. Now how do we know that they are fraudulent in this case? We don't. Back to square one. Personally I put my trust in courts of law, not soundbites from "celebrities".


  • #321
    ciagr297
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 428 ✭✭ciagr297


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm sure they're attempting to come up with something. Can't be treason, it's not terrorism (regardless of how many politicians try to call it such), so there are a limited amount of charges they can bring for actions perpetrated on foreign soil by a foreign national.
    don't they charge people with conspiring to endanger US Nationals? or maybe they are hoping the frenzy over the actual leaks will take away from any investigation they may have regarding source

    must be an insider to get hold of these sorts of documents..?


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ciagr297 wrote: »
    must be an insider to get hold of these sorts of documents..?
    Yes, a relatively low-level officer of the US military with a USB stick managed to download massive amounts of confidential and sensitive documents. Says a lot for the security in place internally on their network.

    I imagine that guy will face execution if/when they get their hands on him.


  • #323
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    Yes, I can. Now how do we know that they are fraudulent? We don't. Back to square one. Personally I put my trust in courts of law, not soundbites from "celebrities".

    your answer of "Yes I can" responds in the affirmative to the one and only point that I was making. I made no comment about whether he is actually guilty or not, or soundbites from celebrities.


  • #324
    Naos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,740 ✭✭✭Naos


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why do people have to multiquote like that? You're quoting the one thing, surely you can do it as one block. It just comes across as extremely pompous otherwise.

    How does it come across as pompous?

    Makes it very clear to see which points he is addressing.


  • #325
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I made no comment about whether he is actually guilty or not, or soundbites from celebrities.

    You made plenty of references to fraudulent charges etc. while trying to explain his situation.


  • #326
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    PostFinance, Assanges bank, were only too happy to freeze his assets, about 30K. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034
    PostFinance said Mr Assange had "provided false information regarding his place of residence" during the account opening process.
    Great excuse, PostFinance (who btw was attacked by hackers because of this).


  • #327
    martyoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 872 ✭✭✭martyoo


    He must have handed himself in. Better of considering the allegations brought against him.

    Hope he will get out soon. I'm sure its nothing short of a setup.


  • #328
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    You made plenty of references to fraudulent charges etc.

    this is true but I was speaking in the conditional tense, ie "if the charges are fraudulent then...". At no point did I say "the charges are fraudulent, therefore...". Which is why your repeated requests for me to provide proof of his innocence were ridiculous


  • #329
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    seamus wrote: »
    Yes, a relatively low-level officer of the US military with a USB stick managed to download massive amounts of confidential and sensitive documents. Says a lot for the security in place internally on their network.

    I imagine that guy will face execution if/when they get their hands on him.

    They have him, and hes facing at least 50 years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning


  • #330
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    karma_ wrote: »
    Nice selective argument. It's all very well condemning wikileaks but in truth they are really the only organisation out there willing to bring governments to any kind of accountability.

    If some of you had your way we would all be mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed shít once in a while, and all you can do is condemn without offering up any kind of substitute, but I'd expect no less from the some of the boot licking establishment can do no wrong lackies around these parts.

    My good man, you appear to have a rather twisted and immature view on how business is done, be that diplomatic or commercial.

    Diplomacy needs to be carried on in an understanding of confidentiality.

    If you ever got the chance to work for a leading edge company, would they be excited and delighted if you leaked all the confidential information to the great world outside.

    Would they fook!!!!

    This idiot thinks he is doing the world a favour,but all he is doing is feeding the terrorist, and their fellow travellers, with the half-baked rhetoric and sound bites that they need to promulgate their poisonous bile to anyone stupid enough to heed them.

    Time he was taken to task and made explain himself.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    jimthemental
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭jimthemental


    I think it's a frame up but I still don't think that he should be let publish all of this material. Some of it is going to initiate a diplomatic shít storm and he'll just walk away roaring freedom of the press. Responsible thought must be given to what wikileaks put out there instead of just churning out every document they get their hands on.

    International security and politics needs to be more transparent/regulated but in my view this isn't how to do it.

    PS: Before anyone starts going off at me I don't have an alternative way of doing this.


Advertisement
Advertisement