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…1213151718…40

Comments

  • #422
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Dohhhhh! Cheers for that. :rolleyes:

    Still, he had a fantastic idea, but ruined it with his anti-US crusade, and made the web a less free place as a result of his actions. That and he's a really, really really arrogant pr*ck.
    Well shame him, the USA that is out to get him by hook, crook or Paypal, Amazon, or VISA route, by panickly searching through their law books for something to charge him with ...and Assange has the nerve to stand up to them!

    The nerve of him! :pac:


  • #423
    Sticky_Fingers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭Sticky_Fingers


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Dohhhhh! Cheers for that. :rolleyes:

    Still, he had a fantastic idea, but ruined it with his anti-US crusade, and made the web a less free place as a result of his actions. That and he's a really, really really arrogant pr*ck.
    So he should pick on everyone apart from the US? Wikileaks can only release documents that are sent to them by sources. A source sent them massive amounts of information concerning the most powerful country on the planet and you are complaining that they are releasing the documents? Perhaps you want them to sit on the info until they get equivalent dirt on the other world superpowers just to be fair.

    Nonsense argument, you want them to publish the sh!t concerning China or Russia then go find a source within these countries who is willing to supply the data otherwise stop complaining about them working with what they have.


  • #424
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Dohhhhh! Cheers for that. :rolleyes:

    Still, he had a fantastic idea, but ruined it with his anti-US crusade, and made the web a less free place as a result of his actions. That and he's a really, really really arrogant pr*ck.

    There were other leaks before wikileaks became a household name you know and they can only release what they are given in fairness. I would imagine the amount of US centric leaks has more to do with the difficulty in obtaining Chinese, Russian or Iranian leaks.

    As for making the net a less free place, well that's about as moronic a statement as I've read all day, however it's about as much as I expect from those on your side of the argument here as well as the slurs against his character.


  • #425
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Biggins wrote: »
    Well shame him, the USA that is out to get him by hook, crook or Paypal, Amazon, or VISA route, by panickly searching through their law books for something to charge him with ...and Assange has the nerve to stand up to them!

    The nerve of him! :pac:

    I would be interested in seeing what preassure was put on these companys, if it was merely a request based on national security, the US government is well within its rights.

    Like I said, it seems like a business descision to me, if I were higher up in one of these companies, I would not want something like Fox News pointing out that my company is helping support something so many Americans see as an attack on their national security. RIghtly or wrongly, they can make that descision. Again, the caveat being what kind of preassure.

    Its important to note that they have been UNABLE to build a case against him, and most experts believe it wont be possible. The US government has plenty of critics, and complain often when things are released, but there is a big difference between that and an international conspiracy to take out a man who is not even intergal to the leaks themselves.


  • #426
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    karma_ wrote: »
    There were other leaks before wikileaks became a household name you know and they can only release what they are given in fairness. I would imagine the amount of US centric leaks has more to do with the difficulty in obtaining Chinese, Russian or Iranian leaks.

    As for making the net a less free place, well that's about as moronic a statement as I've read all day, however it's about as much as I expect from those on your side of the argument here as well as the slurs against his character.

    Well although I agree with you in part (its notable ALL the US leaks came from the same scource); Assange does have an axe to grind with America in particular, the group has splintered over this twice in the past. It is also said by those who left (might be just a rumour) that he has information on Russia, but is fearful of releasing it. Couldnt blame him.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Sticky_Fingers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭Sticky_Fingers


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It ultimately doesn't matter what the word is, the acts either ran afoul of Swedish law or they didn't. I expect that's what the Swedish legal system is going to focus on, rather than whether or not it's called 'rape' on an Irish Internet board.

    NTM
    Nonsense, the guys name has been dragged through the media all over the world with the word rape hung around his neck for all to see. People hear rape and they assume the worst without thinking about the nature of the charges never mind if he is guilty or not.

    As for the charges in question, they seem to be a load of crap, I don't care what the Swedish law says, if the the reports given in the newspaper concerning their nature are accurate and Assange is actually guilty of something under Swedish law then their legal system is a joke, just like ours.

    His only crime is being a bit of an arrogant git who uses consenting women for sex, if thats a crime then a sizable portion of the male population are dangerous sex offenders who should be locked up in order to protect women from themselves since they obviously can't be trusted to make their own decisions regarding the men they consent to sleep with.


  • #428
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    SamHarris wrote: »
    I would be interested in seeing what pressure was put on these company's, if it was merely a request based on national security, the US government is well within its rights.

    Like I said, it seems like a business decision to me, if I were higher up in one of these companies, I would not want something like Fox News pointing out that my company is helping support something so many Americans see as an attack on their national security. Rightly or wrongly, they can make that decision. Again, the caveat being what kind of pressure.

    Its important to note that they have been UNABLE to build a case against him, and most experts believe it wont be possible. The US government has plenty of critics, and complain often when things are released, but there is a big difference between that and an international conspiracy to take out a man who is not even integral to the leaks themselves.

    I'm assuming phone calls are been made to all those that the American agencies can trace, have connections to the man.
    They discover an American company link to Assange, make some phones calls as say "well in its not in your best interest to be seen connected to this guy , etc..."
    ...Next thing you know a crap load of American services decide to withdraw services. Best to keep the Obama government on side - maybe the republicans too!


    It should also be noted that the Website Wikileaks has been releasing many, many documents and despite the painting of some of the press, alone by the way they are reporting particular items, NOT EVERYTHING released is solely based around America!
    As we have seen, stuff has been release about many countries across Europe and the Arab countries, etc.
    ...But hey, let the American media spin it that they are the only ones effected or having secrets revealed!
    Now I wonder why they would want to spin things that way! :rolleyes:

    The American government is fight not one war - but two.
    An internet war and a PR publicity, win the population over war!

    ...Meanwhile they continue to scramble around in their ancient law books looking for something to actually charge him with!
    And hell, if they don't find anything, they can invent something - they are good at that. Inventing things!

    Isn't that right Sadam. You and all your countries weapons of mass destruction stock piled!


  • #429
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Well although I agree with you in part (its notable ALL the US leaks came from the same scource); Assange does have an axe to grind with America in particular, the group has splintered over this twice in the past. It is also said by those who left (might be just a rumour) that he has information on Russia, but is fearful of releasing it. Couldnt blame him.

    Well you said it yourself Sam, he got a massive volume of US info that we know about yet some are still surprised that he is releasing so many US leaks? Not to mention there is no proof at all of any Russian information he might have other than from one disgruntled former staffer.


  • #430
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    When I say he's made the web a less free place, what I'm saying is that, through his actions, those who would censor the web have gained some legitimacy in that they can point to Wikileaks, say "we must stop (insert freedom here) otherwise you'll have another Wikileaks" and people who would have no idea about the web, will remember that pr*ck Assange, and say "it's our patriotic duty to stop (insert freedom here)"

    Some of the most dangerous enemies of any cause are the most fanatical supporters of it.


  • #431
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    When I say he's made the web a less free place, what I'm saying is that, through his actions, those who would censor the web have gained some legitimacy in that they can point to Wikileaks, say "we must stop (insert freedom here) otherwise you'll have another Wikileaks" and people who would have no idea about the web, will remember that pr*ck Assange, and say "it's our patriotic duty to stop (insert freedom here)"

    Some of the most dangerous enemies of any cause are the most fanatical supporters of it.

    Network neutrality has been under attack for quite some time, have you been as vocal about US government wishes to restrict it?


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Biggins wrote: »
    I'm assuming phone calls are been made to all those that the American agencies can trace, have connections to the man.
    They discover an American company link to Assange, make some phones calls as say "well in its not in your best interest to be seen connected to this guy , etc..."
    ...Next thing you know a crap load of American services decide to withdraw services. Best to keep the Obama government on side - maybe the republicans too!


    It should also be noted that the Website Wikileaks has been releasing many, many documents and despite the painting of some of the press, alone by the way they are reporting particular items, NOT EVERYTHING released is solely based around America!
    As we have seen, stuff has been release about many countries across Europe and the Arab countries, etc.
    ...But hey, let the American media spin it that they are the only ones effected or having secrets revealed!
    Now I wonder why they would want to spin things that way! :rolleyes:

    The American government is fight not one war - but two.

    An internet war and a PR publicity, win the population over war!

    It probably was a call something like that, but then they are business' and will look out for their own ass. Any number of NGOs are throwing their support behind Assange (although interestingly not Human rights groups, who have been quite critical of the releases, but thats another thing entirelly).

    Your describing the "American media" as though the country with by far the greatest number of media organisations has a monolithic reporting agenda. Really, thats slipping into crazy consipracy theory area.

    I agree, in fact most of the documents are alot more damaging to other countries than the US, in fact imo the entire thing is more embarrassing for them than damaging in any realy way, Gates had a good quote on it.

    The reason the US media is reporting more on the US angle is because that is what its viewers will be interested in; the same reason the Irish media will report in a car crash in Dublin, but not in Doha. Really, it does not have to be some enormous concerted effort, controlled by some cabal. Many of the publications I have read have opinion pieces both praising and panning the releases, most are far more interested in the political gossip than any embarrasment caused to the government.


  • #433
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    karma_,
    Why should I be? It's not my bugbear, my calling, and before that pr*ck Assange I reckoned that most people in the US woud think "they're theatening web FREEDOM!? No f*cking way!". But now, Assange has handed McCain, Palin et al a golden scaremongering oppertunity. The pr*ck.


  • #434
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Deleted User wrote: »
    When I say he's made the web a less free place, what I'm saying is that, through his actions, those who would censor the web have gained some legitimacy in that they can point to Wikileaks, say "we must stop (insert freedom here) otherwise you'll have another Wikileaks" and people who would have no idea about the web, will remember that pr*ck Assange, and say "it's our patriotic duty to stop (insert freedom here)"

    Some of the most dangerous enemies of any cause are the most fanatical supporters of it.

    I addressed this point already in this thread:
    I disagree.

    The internet has been used for many nefarious means by a many number of organisations (terrorist related) and by criminal organisations for a lot of years. Decades even.
    Part of their activities has been passing encoded messages, creation of their genuine websites for promotion, PR and trying to gain members, false ones for subversions means, the passing and planning of operations across private forums, the supplying of files and data besides the joint efforts for the creation of viruses, etc - did you know at one stage the biggest creators of IT viruses was Yassa Arrafat's PLO organisation that had a team dedicated to creating a a number of trogens/viruses that would hopefully they thought, successfully be attacking the American banking system and economic stock markets - ...and on and on...

    ...So the assumption that just Wikileaks will be the death of the internet or kill its net neutrality, is something I disagree with.
    The Americans in fact (along with multi-national companies who only see it now as a possible two tier net system in the future for profit) having been trying for many, many years now to stem and make a difference to the way the net has operated. They have been trying long before Wikileaks became the voice it is, to kill off net neutrality for a long time by a number of means.
    The "knocks" to the net, the calls for change to the net system, the companies pushing for ending net neutrality, has been going on for decades now. Its nothing new.
    And if a bit of research is done, you would find this out for oneself.

    Wikileaks is not perfect - but it maybe one of the last few large voices that can be heard loud enough by the world, to make a difference.
    ...That is before the American political system and multi-national companies continue to attempt kill it (or similar) off for ever!

    As regards Paypal in America stopping their donation system, it will make things tough for Wikileaks - but as Wikileaks has shown, their methods of fund-raising is not limited to just one service and you can be sure they will come up with an alternative donation service, similar in like to Paypal. Paypal are not the only guys on the block.

    Have a look at: http://213.251.145.96/support.html

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69378717&postcount=219
    Post 219.


  • #435
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    karma_ wrote: »
    Well you said it yourself Sam, he got a massive volume of US info that we know about yet some are still surprised that he is releasing so many US leaks? Not to mention there is no proof at all of any Russian information he might have other than from one disgruntled former staffer.

    True that, I think they release what they get, in general, and it was just the sheer volume of the leek that contributes to this perception of an attack on US interests alone. And I have my doubts about the Russian thing too, but it stands to reason that a more open society will have more leaks, and therefore more will be made available. Its just the way it works.

    I think the gossipy nature of alot of the content is also contributing to the sense that "these papers were hidden for a GOOD reason". So far at least, none have been like the Pentagon papers, that were proof of a protracted misinformation campaign by the US government, people saw those papers as being confidential to protect government, rather than national interests. The same is not happening here. Although I do agree, if they have the leaks, its god awful reporting not to release them, but I can also certainly see the other side of the argument.


  • #436
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Well although I agree with you in part (its notable ALL the US leaks came from the same scource); Assange does have an axe to grind with America in particular, the group has splintered over this twice in the past. It is also said by those who left (might be just a rumour) that he has information on Russia, but is fearful of releasing it. Couldnt blame him.

    Yep, no way he's going to say anything bad about the Russians....
    WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as 'mafia state'
    Kremlin relies on criminals and rewards them with political patronage, while top officials collect bribes 'like a personal taxation system'
    • Putin is accused of amassing "illicit proceeds" from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08
    Gas supplies to Ukraine and EU states are linked to the Russian mafia, according to the US ambassador in Kiev.
    His cable, released by WikiLeaks, followed statements by the then prime minister of Ukraine, Yulia Tymoshenko, to the BBC that she had "documented proof that some powerful criminal structures are behind the RosUkrEnergo (RUE) company".
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russian-mafia-gas?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08
    US diplomats have reported startling suspicions that Silvio Berlusconi could be "profiting personally and handsomely" from secret deals with the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, according to cables released by WikiLeaks.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables-berlusconi-putin


  • #437
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    pr*ck.

    So your don't really give one flying fúck about net freedom, your just using it as an excuse, I guessed as much in fairness.

    Also do yourself a fúcking favour, you don't need to call the guy names in every post!


  • #438
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Deleted User wrote: »
    karma_,
    Why should I be? It's not my bugbear, my calling, and before that pr*ck Assange I reckoned that most people in the US woud think "they're theatening web FREEDOM!? No f*cking way!". But now, Assange has handed McCain, Palin et al a golden scaremongering oppertunity. The pr*ck.

    And this is why there are checks and balances in the US system. If it works (and I believe it will, although it will take awhile for things to get organised) it is irrelevant if a bunch of poltiicians are pulling their hair out, or even if the judiciary is. The supreme court ruling after the Pentagon papers leaves very little lee way for an attack on freedom of speech through legal channels in the states, sure you will have people saying that underhanded ways to deal with wikileaks but to call it some kind of end to freedom of the net is hysterical.


  • #439
    dr gonzo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭dr gonzo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    karma_,
    Why should I be? It's not my bugbear, my calling, and before that pr*ck Assange I reckoned that most people in the US woud think "they're theatening web FREEDOM!? No f*cking way!". But now, Assange has handed McCain, Palin et al a golden scaremongering oppertunity. The pr*ck.

    This is the most moronic reasoning ive ever seen. Youre effectively saying that people shouldnt exercise their most basic human right of free speech because those that would infringe on civil liberties are given more opportunity to do so.

    A democratically elected government should have nothing to hide besides that which would put the public in danger i.e soldiers locations etc but since ive been led to believe this release has been vetted thoroughly for information of that kind there should be nothing to fear.


  • #440
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Deleted User wrote: »
    karma_,
    Why should I be? It's not my bugbear, my calling, and before that pr*ck Assange I reckoned that most people in the US woud think "they're theatening web FREEDOM!? No f*cking way!". But now, Assange has handed McCain, Palin et al a golden scaremongering oppertunity. The pr*ck.
    Nice. :(

    Another point you seem to have missed that he is damned it seems if he/Wikileaks speaks out - yet there are those that also cry that if such sites don't speak out, the freedom of the net and/or more openness and honesty between countries, won't happen or last - because no one is protesting and/or speaking out to keep it that way!

    I guess some people can't win with others!


  • #441
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yep, no way he's going to say anything bad about the Russians....




    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russian-mafia-gas?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables-berlusconi-putin

    I didnt say anything about saying something "bad" about the Russian, the implication of the former wikileaks employee was that it was damaging to the Russians. Big difference. Again, I said I doubted it, but just pointing out it was out there.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Biggins wrote: »
    It not perfect but its perhaps the last large enough voice that is showing things as they REALLY are!

    As the internet is becoming more censored, blocked and filtered, its loss will be more felt in years to come as such freedoms are currently dying.
    So you're supporting the extreme opposite? The leaking of confidential information which shouldn't be in the public domain?


  • #443
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    dr gonzo wrote: »
    This is the most moronic reasoning ive ever seen. Youre effectively saying that people shouldnt exercise their most basic human right of free speech because those that would infringe on civil liberties are given more opportunity to do so.

    A democratically elected government should have nothing to hide besides that which would put the public in danger i.e soldiers locations etc but since ive been led to believe this release has been vetted thoroughly for information of that kind there should be nothing to fear.

    I agree, but another thing that should be kept out of the public domain is sensitive diplomatic negotiations (note I did not say deals, once it starts effecting people it certainly should be in the public domain). The fact is, diplomacy between allies and enemies is BASED upon secrecy, regardless of how one feels about the leaks themselves, or their contribution to freedom of speech, the idea that all negotations should be carried out in full public view is ridiculous.


  • #444
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Another important fact; no one believes in complete freedom of information on the web, it is where that line is drawn that differs.

    Im sure we can all use our imaginations to think of things that should not just be available on the web, there is any number of things.


  • #445
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    gizmo wrote: »
    So you're supporting the extreme opposite? The leaking of confidential information which shouldn't be in the public domain?
    No, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING secret should be exposed.
    I do support the idea that there should be more honesty to the public, accountability for deeds/behind the scene deals and transparency - and until such states start living up to proper modes of behaviour, we needs such people as Assange and his site, to do what most can't - and thats call the all too powerful big boys to order and expose them! till they kop themselves on

    I, personally have already stated that Wikileaks is not perfect a number of times but to repeat myself yet again...
    ...it maybe one of the last few large voices that can be heard loud enough by the world, to make a difference.
    ...That is before the American political system and multi-national companies continue to attempt kill it (or similar) off for ever!


  • #446
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    SamHarris wrote: »
    I agree, but another thing that should be kept out of the public domain is sensitive diplomatic negotiations (note I did not say deals, once it starts effecting people it certainly should be in the public domain). The fact is, diplomacy between allies and enemies is BASED upon secrecy, regardless of how one feels about the leaks themselves, or their contribution to freedom of speech, the idea that all negotations should be carried out in full public view is ridiculous.

    I disagree about diplomatic negotiations, in fact I would strongly argue this is one thing that should be completely out in the open. Fair enough, I understand the need for secrecy at the time of negotiations but there is nothing to say that details should not be released within say one year of the conclusion of a deal.

    The citizens of any country should have the right to know if their government is making good or really bad deals on their behalf.


  • #447
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    Biggins wrote: »
    Well shame him, the USA that is out to get him by hook, crook or Paypal, Amazon, or VISA route, by panickly searching through their law books for something to charge him with ...and Assange has the nerve to stand up to them!

    The nerve of him! :pac:

    Strangely when the website was under attack from a private individual acting on his own the United States refused to cyber attack the site even though it could have been done without notice because of the other attacks instigated by that individual. Not much sign of suppressing freedom of speech in that action.


  • #448
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    LOL

    Just read there that you can use Visa and Paypal to make donations to the KKK, but not to wikileaks, fúcking astounding.


  • #449
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Sickening, actually:

    http://gizmodo.com/5708380/us-celebrates-wikileaks-arrest-by-announcing-press-freedom-day
    Wikileaks' Julian Assange is arrested on suspicion of rape; today U.S. State Department drops this gem: "The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011 in Washington, D.C." Oh my.

    The undercurrent of the rape charges brought by two women in Sweden has been—by some, not all—that they are trumped up in an attempt to silence Assange. Be that as it may, they at least deserve their day in court. That something as relatively incidental to international security as a sex crime has been pursued by the likes of Interpol, however, does little to dispel the idea that perhaps Assange is getting special attention because of his day job.

    It's in this context that the State Department's giddy clapping about hosting a UNESCO event in D.C. looks completely, laughably out of touch. The same government that can call Assange a high-tech terrorist one day can put out a press release a week later that says this:
    The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.


  • #450
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    Strangely when the website was under attack from a private individual acting on his own the United States refused to cyber attack the site even though it could have been done without notice because of the other attacks instigated by that individual. Not much sign of suppressing freedom of speech in that action.
    Maybe the policy and/or attitude then at the time was to take a more conservative and safe legal route to ensure the site could be stopped?

    As it is now, the gloves are off and the American government is trying every trick in the book now - seemingly with dirty tactics too now - including a DOS attack?


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Overheal wrote: »
    Sickening, actually:

    http://gizmodo.com/5708380/us-celebrates-wikileaks-arrest-by-announcing-press-freedom-day

    Up there with telling Iran not to interfere in Iraqs internal affairs....


Advertisement
Advertisement