Support NeoGAF

[BraveOne]

ECUADOR’S PRESIDENT Lenin Moreno traveled to London on Friday for the ostensible purpose of speaking at the 2018 Global Disabilities Summit (Moreno has been confined to a wheelchair since being shot in a 1998 robbery attempt). The concealed, actual purpose of the President’s trip is to meet with British officials to finalize an agreement under which Ecuador will withdraw its asylum protection of Julian Assange, in place since 2012, eject him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then hand over the WikiLeaks founder to British authorities.

The Intercept

Never saw this coming

(Can a mod uncap the tile ..pretty plz)

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Goodness, all caps, bro?

 

[TheShadowLord]

I hope Mueller gets a chance to talk to him.

 

[MisterFalcon]

I expect the UK and US to do the worst possible thing to him: absolutely nothing. A fine for skipping bail and then only the realization this whole theater was for nothing and he wasted all those years.

 

[BraveOne]

Goodness, all caps, bro?

Copied the title from the original article .. need to show that ugency

 

[Arkage]

Makes me wonder what Ecuador is getting in return.

 

[norm9]

Don't hack your host if you're a beggar needing a place to stay. Now he's fucked.

 

[haxan7]

Only excuse for an all-caps thread title is if actual nuclear bombs are on currently en route to a target.

 

[Scopa]

I am disgusted that the Australian government has done absolutely nothing to help one of its citizens. All they do is bend over for their overlords. Weak and pathetic.

 

[finowns]

Only excuse for an all-caps thread title is if actual nuclear bombs are on currently en route to a target.

I lol'd.

 

[cpp_is_king]

kinda hope they throw the book at him

 

[i_am_ben]

hopefully Sweden gets to speak to him about the alleged rape.

 

[Papa]

kinda hope they throw the book at him

Why?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Why?

Not a huge fan of people who leak top secret information. Same reason I'm not a fan of Manning or Snowden. I don't care what political side they're on, information is confidential for a reason. And while it's true that some of that information is more harmful secret than public, some of it is more harmful public than secret. And it is not one random person's job to decide which information should get out and which information shouldn't.

 

[12Goblins]

Mueller needs to have a talk

 

[JimmyJones]

Assange was assassinated a few years back.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Not a huge fan of people who leak top secret information. Same reason I'm not a fan of Manning or Snowden. I don't care what political side they're on, information is confidential for a reason. And while it's true that some of that information is more harmful secret than public, some of it is more harmful public than secret. And it is not one random person's job to decide which information should get out and which information shouldn't.

We need to know the truth. What the government hides from us might as well be treason.

 

[cpp_is_king]

We need to know the truth. What the government hides from us might as well be treason.

No, we really don’t.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

No, we really don’t.

Why?

 

[Rentahamster]

It's kind of sad that this is the treatment real journalism gets - speaking truth to power, while the corporate funded media get rich off of tabloid stories and sensationalism.

The status quo sucks sometimes.

 

[Kadayi]

Not a huge fan of people who leak top secret information. Same reason I'm not a fan of Manning or Snowden. I don't care what political side they're on, information is confidential for a reason. And while it's true that some of that information is more harmful secret than public, some of it is more harmful public than secret. And it is not one random person's job to decide which information should get out and which information shouldn't.

Your blind faith in who decides what should be "top secret" and therefore is not in the public interest is kind of astounding.

 

[Panda1]

Your blind faith in who decides what should be "top secret" and therefore is not in the public interest is kind of astounding.

There are all kinds of people mate, cpp is a sheep - he does what he is told and listen to the government as they know better than him.

 

[Forthefuture]

It was inevitable I guess. Lets see where his loyalties lie.

 

[Harksteed]

I feel like people forget that the initial Wikileaks isn't exactly the same as the current one. Them selectively releasing information fed to them is something you should be *very* wary of. Just look at their Twitter account and you can see how incredibly biased they are these days. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic for Assange.

 

[King of Foxes]

I havent followed Assange very closely, I know the rape accusations in Sweden but does the UK actually want him for anything?

 

[Kadayi]

I havent followed Assange very closely, I know the rape accusations in Sweden but does the UK actually want him for anything?

Basically, he skipped bail and sought asylum in the Embassy, so yeah he's wanted by the UK authorities for that. Assange could have left the embassy at any time but has stayed there because he is fearful that the UK will extradite him to the US. Whether that would happen in today's climate I don't know. Politically I don't think it would do May any favours to pack him off and I'm not entirely sure whether Trump wants him either though I dare say that there are plenty out there who want to see Assange behind bars.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

The idea that a ‘business’ as large as a country can get by without having some secrets is ridiculous. Secrets which simply can’t be known by the general populace.

Instead we in the better countries, the democratic ones, we elect out peers to handle such secret information. If we don’t like what they do we can get rid of them. That’s the system. Our democratic countries are not perfect, far from it. As Churchill said, “democracy is the worst system, apart from all the rest”.

We have specialist intelligence agencies to handle the most sensitive data. Do people like Assange really think they know better. That they alone can be the sole arbitrator of what is known and what isn’t? - Does leaking something appear on the surface like he has done a heroic deed, but in actuality has made things worse. How can he know that. He would need to be a God like figure to know better than the entire CIA or MI6.

This type of thinking seems terribly naive, immature and self centred to me. Furthermore, morons like Assange seem to have a particular hard on for these western democracies and their top secret information. You can’t help notice that they for the most part stay clear of places and organisations like the Russian government. Organisations which would happily kill ‘journalists’ like him in a heartbeat for his dissent. Instead he goes for western intelligence, from the countries which have birthed the most freedom and quality of life for the ordinary human.

Assange is no hero of the people. He is a self centred egotistical coward.

 

[llien]

I never quite got why he chose Equador to hide or why they agreed to protect him, to begin with.

So, Sweden is after him for sexual assault ("stealthing" as I recall) and US... not at all yet?
Why is UK trying to arrest him, by the way?

 

[Scopa]

The idea that a ‘business’ as large as a country can get by without having some secrets is ridiculous. Secrets which simply can’t be known by the general populace.

Instead we in the better countries, the democratic ones, we elect out peers to handle such secret information. If we don’t like what they do we can get rid of them. That’s the system. Our democratic countries are not perfect, far from it. As Churchill said, “democracy is the worst system, apart from all the rest”.

We have specialist intelligence agencies to handle the most sensitive data. Do people like Assange really think they know better. That they alone can be the sole arbitrator of what is known and what isn’t? - Does leaking something appear on the surface like he has done a heroic deed, but in actuality has made things worse. How can he know that. He would need to be a God like figure to know better than the entire CIA or MI6.

This type of thinking seems terribly naive, immature and self centred to me. Furthermore, morons like Assange seem to have a particular hard on for these western democracies and their top secret information. You can’t help notice that they for the most part stay clear of places and organisations like the Russian government. Organisations which would happily kill ‘journalists’ like him in a heartbeat for his dissent. Instead he goes for western intelligence, from the countries which have birthed the most freedom and quality of life for the ordinary human.

Assange is no hero of the people. He is a self centred egotistical coward.

Baaa baaaa.

The fact that you call others naive is amazing.

 

[notathing]

kinda hope they throw the book at him

Kinda hope you die in a war crime where your country is invaded under false pretext and the soldiers doing the actual murder are laughing. Releasing that sort of material to the world lead to this whole situation.

You sick motherfucker. Fuck you

 

[Panda1]

I feel like people forget that the initial Wikileaks isn't exactly the same as the current one. Them selectively releasing information fed to them is something you should be *very* wary of. Just look at their Twitter account and you can see how incredibly biased they are these days. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic for Assange.

i wonder why when Hilary Clinton threatened to kill hi and he has been in confinement for years!! I bet he is really cheery and loves America -use your brain ,the company is compose of humans and their own interests. At the same time them releasing leaks is te best thing since they are facts that have never once been disputed.

 

[Panda1]

He is missing a trick all he has to do is convert to Islam then he will get all the governments support

 

[TheShadowLord]

i wonder why when Hilary Clinton threatened to kill hi and he has been in confinement for years!! I bet he is really cheery and loves America -use your brain ,the company is compose of humans and their own interests. At the same time them releasing leaks is te best thing since they are facts that have never once been disputed.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/
To Silence Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange?
E-mail leaked by WikiLeaks doesn't demonstrate that Hillary Clinton suggested assassinating founder Julian Assange via a drone strike.


First of all, the only cited source documenting that Hillary Clinton had ever suggested (even in jest) that a drone strike could take out Julian Assange was “sources at the State Department,” a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification. Second, the claim that Hillary Clinton or her aides had either hinted or directly ordered remote assassination of Assange in November 2010 focused on a questionable interpretation of the terms “legal and nonlegal strategies” that appeared in the subject line of e-mails sent by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State and released via WikiLeaks’ first searchable Hillary Clinton e-mail archive in March 2016.

However, the text of those e-mails (located here and here) neither said nor implied anything of the sort:

From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM
To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J Subject:
Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks
Following this morning’s meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff — Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Director of Policy Planning
U.S. Department of State​

The thrust of True Pundit’s article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term “nonlegal” essentially means the same thing as “illegal,” and much of the article’s content delved into discussing why illegal methods for dealing with a WikiLeaks issue would be improper. However, “nonlegal” also bears a distinctly different meaning than “illegal”; the former can be used to distinguish discussions dealing with the law and legalities from discussions that don’t involve legal matters:

Moreover, Anne-Marie Slaughter’s only reference to “nonlegal” methods were some “very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy” (included in an unavailable appended memo). Unless “public diplomacy” is reasonable code for “drone strike,” the most logical reading of the e-mail chain would be that the meeting referenced in the e-mail explored what legal actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, with a secondary focus on “nonlegal” (i.e., not related to law enforcement or litigation) approaches such as diplomacy and public relations.

On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn’t “recall any joke … [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke”

Rating: Unproven



By the way, it was labeled under conspiracy theories lol. However Mike Pompeo had suggested Snowden should be given in a death sentence if brought back. And Trump has compared him to the spies of the old days where they would be executed . Though hasn't rather or not he believes Snowden should be executed.

https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2016/10/nonlegal-wikileaks-assange-clinton.jpg

 

[Scopa]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/
To Silence Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange?
E-mail leaked by WikiLeaks doesn't demonstrate that Hillary Clinton suggested assassinating founder Julian Assange via a drone strike.


First of all, the only cited source documenting that Hillary Clinton had ever suggested (even in jest) that a drone strike could take out Julian Assange was “sources at the State Department,” a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification. Second, the claim that Hillary Clinton or her aides had either hinted or directly ordered remote assassination of Assange in November 2010 focused on a questionable interpretation of the terms “legal and nonlegal strategies” that appeared in the subject line of e-mails sent by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State and released via WikiLeaks’ first searchable Hillary Clinton e-mail archive in March 2016.

However, the text of those e-mails (located here and here) neither said nor implied anything of the sort:

From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>​

Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM​

To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J Subject:​

Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks​

Following this morning’s meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff — Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM​

Anne-Marie Slaughter​

Director of Policy Planning​

U.S. Department of State​

The thrust of True Pundit’s article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term “nonlegal” essentially means the same thing as “illegal,” and much of the article’s content delved into discussing why illegal methods for dealing with a WikiLeaks issue would be improper. However, “nonlegal” also bears a distinctly different meaning than “illegal”; the former can be used to distinguish discussions dealing with the law and legalities from discussions that don’t involve legal matters:

Moreover, Anne-Marie Slaughter’s only reference to “nonlegal” methods were some “very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy” (included in an unavailable appended memo). Unless “public diplomacy” is reasonable code for “drone strike,” the most logical reading of the e-mail chain would be that the meeting referenced in the e-mail explored what legal actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, with a secondary focus on “nonlegal” (i.e., not related to law enforcement or litigation) approaches such as diplomacy and public relations.

On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn’t “recall any joke … [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke”

Rating: Unproven



By the way, it was labeled under conspiracy theories lol. However Mike Pompeo had suggested Snowden should be given in a death sentence if brought back. And Trump has compared him to the spies of the old days where they would be executed . Though hasn't rather or not he believes Snowden should be executed.

Not saying this particular article is wrong, but please. Snopes, lol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cludes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...tory-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/

 

[TheShadowLord]

Using Snopes as a reference. Please.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cludes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...tory-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/

Says the person who is using the dailymail to counter my argument.....

 

[Scopa]

Says the person who is using the dailymail to counter my argument.....

Forbes?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Your blind faith in who decides what should be "top secret" and therefore is not in the public interest is kind of astounding.

I don’t have blind faith in the government. There is absolutely some corruption and as I already stated, some information is more harmful secret than it is public. I just don’t think a random schmuck with questionable loyalty is the right person to decide what should be public. Nor do I think everything should be public just on principle

 

[TheShadowLord]

Forbes?

whose original source was the dailymail

 

[Kadayi]

I don’t have blind faith in the government. There is absolutely some corruption and as I already stated, some information is more harmful secret than it is public. I just don’t think a random schmuck with questionable loyalty is the right person to decide what should be public. Nor do I think everything should be public just on principle

Dude, Wikileaks didn't release NOC lists as far as I'm aware.

 

[Scopa]

whose original source was the dailymail

Regardless of whether the Daily Mail article is correct in its claims about Snopes, at the least what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function.

At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...tory-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/

 

[Insane Metal]

Kinda hope you die in a war crime where your country is invaded under false pretext and the soldiers doing the actual murder are laughing. Releasing that sort of material to the world lead to this whole situation.

You sick motherfucker. Fuck you

wtf dude

 

[Bogey2]

Instead we in the better countries, the democratic ones, we elect out peers to handle such secret information. If we don’t like what they do we can get rid of them. That’s the system. Our democratic countries are not perfect, far from it. As Churchill said, “democracy is the worst system, apart from all the rest”.

How can we make democratic decisions if we don't even know what's going on?
For example, NSA spying on pretty much everyone everywhere. If that very fact wasn't even known, how could this even influence your voting decision? You won't know which politician supports this and which ones do not, as you wouldn't even know the fact in the first place. Secretive programs are absolutely invisible to democracy.

And let's not even speak of all of us non-US citizens. As a non american, I obviously can't vote in America, yet e.g. your authorities are still spying on potentially all of my most private data and, imho, breaching my - and everyone else's - human rights. It's certainly at the very least nice to know this is happening...

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, we really don’t.

Yes we do. Unaccountable state is a guarantee of tyranny.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Yes we do. Unaccountable state is a guarantee of tyranny.

Let me know when you have a working example of system of government with zero secrets. It would fall before it even got off the ground

 

[zombie_gamer87]

Where is Pamela Anderson when you need her?

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Let me know when you have a working example of system of government with zero secrets. It would fall before it even got off the ground

That isn't the standard. It's the level of secrets and the type of secrets that draw the line. The US press is not reliable at protecting important whistleblowers. That's why you have wikileaks.

The lack of care given over Assange's treatment is a indictment of the state of journalism.

 

[cpp_is_king]

That isn't the standard. It's the level of secrets and the type of secrets that draw the line. The US press is not reliable at protecting important whistleblowers. That's why you have wikileaks.

The lack of care given over Assange's treatment is a indictment of the state of journalism.

And why should it be a self-appointed, non American, non elected official with unknown and unverifiable loyalty who gets to decide what information the public needs to know about.

The irony of all this is that because of all these leaks perpetrated by WikiLeaks, security clearance will be restricted even further and the government will lock down access to even more information from more people to minimize their risk going forward

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Every journalist is self-appointed. Wikileaks doesn't just divulge American leaks. He doesn't have to be American.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

How can we make democratic decisions if we don't even know what's going on?
For example, NSA spying on pretty much everyone everywhere. If that very fact wasn't even known, how could this even influence your voting decision? You won't know which politician supports this and which ones do not, as you wouldn't even know the fact in the first place. Secretive programs are absolutely invisible to democracy.

And let's not even speak of all of us non-US citizens. As a non american, I obviously can't vote in America, yet e.g. your authorities are still spying on potentially all of my most private data and, imho, breaching my - and everyone else's - human rights. It's certainly at the very least nice to know this is happening...

Because the democratically elected people are put in place to make those decisions. You can't have a public vote on absolutely everything. This is especially the case when it comes to things like intelligence and national security. The professionals are left in trust to do the right and best things, not Joe Bloggs who works in Mcdonalds.

Of course some of the leaks are of concern. But even then it's not really possible to comment on them without knowing the full extent of things, or why certain things might be necessary. Spying on your data as you mention is not something I am comfortable with either, but maybe in today's world it is a necessary evil in order to keep people as safe as possible. Plus it's not like somebody is going through your life with a fine tooth comb. It's running on computers which pull out things which are flagged as important. If you aren't up to anything nefarious then nobody is really looking at you in any personal way.

Look at the UK. We have been told that MI5 have been stopping a major terror plot every single month for the last few years. This no doubt is made possible partly with the use of data spying and being able to look closely at people using modern technology. Is it better to not have these capabilities but have more people getting blown up every month. I'm not sure.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Because the democratically elected people are put in place to make those decisions. You can't have a public vote on absolutely everything. This is especially the case when it comes to things like intelligence and national security. The professionals are left in trust to do the right and best things, not Joe Bloggs who works in Mcdonalds.

Of course some of the leaks are of concern. But even then it's not really possible to comment on them without knowing the full extent of things, or why certain things might be necessary. Spying on your data as you mention is not something I am comfortable with either, but maybe in today's world it is a necessary evil in order to keep people as safe as possible. Plus it's not like somebody is going through your life with a fine tooth comb. It's running on computers which pull out things which are flagged as important. If you aren't up to anything nefarious then nobody is really looking at you in any personal way.

Look at the UK. We have been told that MI5 have been stopping a major terror plot every single month for the last few years. This no doubt is made possible partly with the use of data spying and being able to look closely at people using modern technology. Is it better to not have these capabilities but have more people getting blown up every month. I'm not sure.

But do you know if they actually have been saving people, or is that just PR released from otherwise "classified" accounts? Or is it from operations like the US FBI has done where they have groomed and radicalized people into becoming terrorists, set them up, then declared victory?

If the TSA in the US is any indication, these security efforts are largely ineffective. The TSA will stop a simulated attack <5% of the time, which means (based on probability) that there have not really been any large attacks even attempted, because almost all of them should have succeeded.