Also in the news

[RoboFox]

55 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

There's also the fact that Assange has proved himself to be a very willing friend of brutal dictatorships, most notably Belarus. He reportedly flew into Minsk once and handed over a huge cache of unredacted documents to the government - a government whose record on human rights is one of the worst in the world.

 

He has no ethical position other than his loathing of the US and its allies. That is perhaps not enough to make him a criminal, but the way his supporters hold him up as a beacon of freedom is somewhat sickening. 

I have to hold my hands up and say this had totally passed me by. I didn’t know this.
 

I’ve just been reading up on it and it’s quite shocking (and disappointing) in itself, more so considering the events of the last six months. There seems to be real dichotomy in terms of what he professes to represent, and the whilst I still absolutely think he shouldn’t be extradited, it makes it far more complicated.

 

Thanks for the heads up, but my point still stands TBF: our government is willing to extradite him whilst Anne Sacoolas walks around completely without consequence.

 

Surprised Patel didn’t just bung Assange on a flight to Rwanda. 

 

Edited 17 June 2022 by RoboFox

[adam]

Some common sense finally.

[Jon the Hat]

11 hours ago, adam said:

Some common sense finally.

Good news.

Edited 20 June 2022 by Jon the Hat

[ozleicester]

Assange is a journalist that embarrassed the US, UK and Aus governments (amongst others), the "Sexual Misconduct" charges were a lie and beat up created by one or all of those governments.

What a shame that a mans life has been destroyed because he published the truth and that embarrassed governments made up of war criminals and corrupt scumbags who have the power to ruin him. Then stupid people believe the lies and support the cruelty. If he is to be imprisoned then so should every decent journalist.

[ozleicester]

On 17/06/2022 at 23:06, Foxdiamond said:

Good points.  Notable that Edward Snowden took asylum in Russia

Where else would you suggest he take "asylum"?

The UK is currently sending Assange back to be tortured for being a journalist so obviously Snowden has to go somewhere the US cant get him.

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Where else would you suggest he take "asylum"?

The UK is currently sending Assange back to be tortured for being a journalist so obviously Snowden has to go somewhere the US cant get him.

What would have happened to Snowden if he had given away sensitive information from Russia that haven of free speech and tolerance.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Assange is a journalist that embarrassed the US, UK and Aus governments (amongst others), the "Sexual Misconduct" charges were a lie and beat up created by one or all of those governments.

What a shame that a mans life has been destroyed because he published the truth and that embarrassed governments made up of war criminals and corrupt scumbags who have the power to ruin him. Then stupid people believe the lies and support the cruelty. If he is to be imprisoned then so should every decent journalist.

 

That's a bold claim, Oz. I presume you weren't in the room with Assange and the women concerned? Also,blaming "one or all of those govts" suggests you're unsure exactly who you're accusing of stitching him up, suggesting suspicion not evidence.

 

The charges were dropped so we have to assume that he was innocent and he may have been. But an awful lot of rape/sexual misconduct cases don't get to court without it meaning that the man is innocent.

 

On the merits of Wikileaks, I have distinctly mixed feelings. Clearly, some material released has been beneficial - revealing US military atrocities etc. But the ideology behind Wikileaks smacks of right-wing libertarianism: democratic states being inherently corrupt and evil, total freedom of information etc. Of course, states in the West do sometimes act in a corrupt and evil way, which should be exposed - and I'm no fan of unnecessary state secrecy. But some level of state secrecy is necessary, including in the military. If Assange is put on trial, maybe we'll see whether there's any definitive evidence that Wikileaks releases put people in danger. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of total freedom of information anyway. I wouldn't want all my personal data released online for potential abuse by malign elements.....and I'm not someone of particular interest to such people/groups.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

What would have happened to Snowden if he had given away sensitive information from Russia that haven of free speech and tolerance.

... the same thing that would have happened had he stayed in the US, if the treatment of other such whistle-blowers like Manning and Assange are anything to go by.

 

Let's not pretend there's that much of a moral gap between the big players on this particular matter. There isn't.

[Foxdiamond]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... the same thing that would have happened had he stayed in the US, if the treatment of other such whistle-blowers like Manning and Assange are anything to go by.

 

Let's not pretend there's that much of a moral gap between the big players on this particular matter. There isn't.

I think most of us realise its a dirty murky world. 

[Alf Bentley]

It's a dirty murky world and the US has plenty of serious flaws. But if given the choice, I think I'd still rather take my chances of a fair trial and some decent media coverage in the US than in Russia.

 

Manning has been released, hasn't she?  Whereas Navalny recently disappeared and is reportedly now in a high-security prison known for torture and abuse.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Where else would you suggest he take "asylum"?

He never intended to end up in Russia though. His original plan was to head for Latin America via Cuba. He had been on his way from Hong Kong via Moscow and Havana to what he hoped would be sanctuary in Ecuador when the US cancelled his passport, leaving him stranded in Russia. He was given temporary asylum when he first arrived (detained) and now has been granted permanent residency, (effectively the equivalent of a US green card), which needs to be renewed every three years - although this is just a formality. He travels freely around Moscow, attends concerts, art galleries, meets with friends in cafés and does not attempt to conceal his identity. If the CIA wanted him dead, that would have happened long ago. If on the other hand he was a Russian fugitive in a Western city he would have been served a polonium laced cup of coffee or a novichok sandwich in short order. 

[Foxdiamond]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

It's a dirty murky world and the US has plenty of serious flaws. But if given the choice, I think I'd still rather take my chances of a fair trial and some decent media coverage in the US than in Russia.

 

Manning has been released, hasn't she?  Whereas Navalny recently disappeared and is reportedly now in a high-security prison known for torture and abuse.

Agreed. The idea that everything should be in the public domain is absurd and dangerous. Journalists have a job to do but does this mean there should never be anything held back.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Agreed. The idea that everything should be in the public domain is absurd and dangerous. Journalists have a job to do but does this mean there should never be anything held back.

The thing is, is it journalism to just dump a mass of unchecked information online, not actually knowing what is in there?  I would argue the lack of scrutiny and consideration of the consequences is not akin to real journalism.  The lack of consideration for the lives of those working for the security of the western world (whether you agree with the agenda or not) is callous at best, and manslaughter at worst.  He deserves to face a court for his actions.  Whether he deserves to spend any more time locked up is a different  point.  I suspect his self imposed exile plus the time spent locked up since he came out of his embassy prison is probably more than he would have got had he faced up to it initially.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I think most of us realise its a dirty murky world. 

And yet it would seem there are those bound and determined to see one side or another as significantly cleaner than the other.

 

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's a bold claim, Oz. I presume you weren't in the room with Assange and the women concerned? Also,blaming "one or all of those govts" suggests you're unsure exactly who you're accusing of stitching him up, suggesting suspicion not evidence.

 

The charges were dropped so we have to assume that he was innocent and he may have been. But an awful lot of rape/sexual misconduct cases don't get to court without it meaning that the man is innocent.

 

On the merits of Wikileaks, I have distinctly mixed feelings. Clearly, some material released has been beneficial - revealing US military atrocities etc. But the ideology behind Wikileaks smacks of right-wing libertarianism: democratic states being inherently corrupt and evil, total freedom of information etc. Of course, states in the West do sometimes act in a corrupt and evil way, which should be exposed - and I'm no fan of unnecessary state secrecy. But some level of state secrecy is necessary, including in the military. If Assange is put on trial, maybe we'll see whether there's any definitive evidence that Wikileaks releases put people in danger. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of total freedom of information anyway. I wouldn't want all my personal data released online for potential abuse by malign elements.....and I'm not someone of particular interest to such people/groups.

I guess it comes down to one persons thoughts on the amount of secrecy required and whether or not the bolded is really being done at the present time.

 

My own take is that all the big states "security" apparatus aren't held to account for unethical things they do nearly as often as they should be and the process should be much more transparent - as I've said before, if you have to deny that you did an action, then it was probably a shitty action in the first place.

 

 

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

He never intended to end up in Russia though. His original plan was to head for Latin America via Cuba. He had been on his way from Hong Kong via Moscow and Havana to what he hoped would be sanctuary in Ecuador when the US cancelled his passport, leaving him stranded in Russia. He was given temporary asylum when he first arrived (detained) and now has been granted permanent residency, (effectively the equivalent of a US green card), which needs to be renewed every three years - although this is just a formality. He travels freely around Moscow, attends concerts, art galleries, meets with friends in cafés and does not attempt to conceal his identity. If the CIA wanted him dead, that would have happened long ago. If on the other hand he was a Russian fugitive in a Western city he would have been served a polonium laced cup of coffee or a novichok sandwich in short order. 

If I might offer a counterpoint here, while Snowden isn't dead, he is neutralised from the point of view that he'll not be able to shed light on the work of the US three-letter agencies again; as such, letting him live out his life and killing him doesn't have much in the way of practical difference in that regard, apart from being a bit more morally square (and playing to good PR).

 

 

3 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Agreed. The idea that everything should be in the public domain is absurd and dangerous. Journalists have a job to do but does this mean there should never be anything held back.

 

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

The thing is, is it journalism to just dump a mass of unchecked information online, not actually knowing what is in there?  I would argue the lack of scrutiny and consideration of the consequences is not akin to real journalism.  The lack of consideration for the lives of those working for the security of the western world (whether you agree with the agenda or not) is callous at best, and manslaughter at worst.  He deserves to face a court for his actions.  Whether he deserves to spend any more time locked up is a different  point.  I suspect his self imposed exile plus the time spent locked up since he came out of his embassy prison is probably more than he would have got had he faced up to it initially.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

The lack of transparency and accountability of these organisations in the "West" are the reason this all came to a head in the first place. It's fine for some things to be off public record when having it out there might jeopardise life and freedom, but what little has been gleaned through such leaks now and in the past shows that often the actions of such organisations go far beyond that and into behaviour that is unethical at best and flat-out nasty at worst.

 

And when such behaviour occurs...where, again, is the accountability? Who answers for it, and how? Who answered for COINTELPRO? For the killing of legitimately elected leaders all across Latin America?

 

Too much trust in such entities with such unaccountable power is not a good idea IMO - as Acton said, power corrupts. Tony Benn also had it right when he had his five questions for those with power, especially the first ("What power have you got?") and the last ("How do we get rid of you?")

 

Pardon me for not taking their good behaviour on faith, given past records.

Edited 20 June 2022 by leicsmac

[Foxdiamond]

Who decides what is dangerous, against national interests or aids our enemies? 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Who decides what is dangerous, against national interests or aids our enemies? 

Someone who is directly accountable to as many people as possible, for preference.

 

The same might be said of who decides who "our" enemies are in the first place and why the puerile dance of realpolitik has to continue.

[LiberalFox]

I remember reading a bunch of the wikileaks stuff in my early 20's because it seemed like a cool and interesting thing to do. 99% of it was just completely mundane conversations between political figures and international organisations. These were people like Hilary Clinton discussing education strategy with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi. She came over well as did he. What I took from it is that actually 99.9% of the time people were doing their jobs, not plotting to take over the world or being super villains. 

 

Of course the US had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and there were war crimes being exposed, Assange didn't seem to care much though about the safety of his sources. I don't know how much truth there was in the rape/sexual assault allegations but I wouldn't write them off as some kind of conspiracy. 

 

I don't think it should be legal to just mass publish secret documents. A lot of it's about simple privacy and also if every word is recorded that makes it hard for leadership figures to do their jobs. How would people feel if all their private messages and emails were just put up on the internet along with their personal details? 

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Someone who is directly accountable to as many people as possible, for preference.

 

The same might be said of who decides who "our" enemies are in the first place and why the puerile dance of realpolitik has to continue.

Sometimes we are chosen as enemies.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Sometimes we are chosen as enemies.

Sometimes "we" are, for it seems the same ridiculous desire is prevalent in a great many of our species. A critical evolutionary flaw.

 

But that's a discussion for another time, the point is that there must be accountability by those who supposedly "serve" a people to the people they "serve". Does that really happen anywhere near enough? I'd be happy to entertain arguments about why it does because I'm entirely unconvinced.

[Wymsey]

A man is feared drowned at Watermead Park.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/pair-traumatised-after-trying-save-7230824

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

A man is feared drowned at Watermead Park.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/pair-traumatised-after-trying-save-7230824

I thought mammoth lake was deep as balls? Why doesn't it look like there are any divers there? 

 

And I was there on Sunday and there wasn't anyone there doing anything. All very strange.

 

Surprised to hear people don't know not to swim in it though. wouldn't be the first person to reach a grim end in and around the lakes.

[foxile5]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

I thought mammoth lake was deep as balls? Why doesn't it look like there are any divers there? 

 

And I was there on Sunday and there wasn't anyone there doing anything. All very strange.

 

Surprised to hear people don't know not to swim in it though. wouldn't be the first person to reach a grim end in and around the lakes.

Why would it be bad to swim in? 

 

It doesn't look so big as to be unswimmable. 

[ClaphamFox]

35 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Why would it be bad to swim in? 

 

It doesn't look so big as to be unswimmable. 

I went to Longslade school in Birstall and I clearly remember swimming in the lakes in Watermead after school during the summer months. I can’t recall any of us ever thinking there was any risk - idiots that we were…

[foxile5]

6 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I went to Longslade school in Birstall and I clearly remember swimming in the lakes in Watermead after school during the summer months. I can’t recall any of us ever thinking there was any risk - idiots that we were…

I've never been. Only judging it on pictures. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61862035

 

Tragic stuff. Also, unfortunately, likely just the beginning.