Assange..set to become Ecuardorian

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

He's wanted for rape in Sweden or has to show there for a court meeting, then he ran away TWICE and seeks cover in Ecuador. Yes he might have used "freedom of speech" (too free imo) but when you're wanted for something that has NOTHING to do with wikileaks in a country and that country wants to speak with you in court and you decide to run away?

This Assange person smells fishy from a mile away, he might have done what's "right" but when he runs away from something he might have done wrong that makes him just as small as any other rapist (if he actually did that)

[Edc]

So because he is not a professional journalist he is not protected by freedom of the press?

You heard it here first.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

Which was damn lucky, he still should not have released that info. Telling the world about warcrimes is ok in my book, but putting peoples lives at risk is bloody stupid.

I have to agree, reporting crimes to the public is something very noble and should be respected to some degree. But the moment you give the public the names of people that COULD have responsibility or did the action on order that opens up a very easy way for anyone in the public to revenge or sabotage those people.
Hell, if wikileaks information was incorrect and someone innocent got killed for something they were claimed to do?

Wikileaks should've kept names secret or blurred them out, they've put crosshairs on so many peoples head it's sick!

[Dawn Falcon]

That's right. The entire flipping point about freedom of the press is you have to be an accredited journalist to qualify for protection in most countries and regions.

There's a reason there are other terms for people who simply reveal information, like "whistleblower". Which he isn't either, he's the administrator of a site distributing information others have gathered. Others, like Cryptome, have managed to work in the US without being shut down...

Huntingbear - I'm getting major parallels to the case of Roman Polanski...

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

It was a bit careless indeed and they admit that themselves and also stated they would release more strictly.
Either way it is a small price to pay to get to know about all the numerous warcrimes the US enduldge herself with, a VERY small price.

That's the thing, it was the US that did the crimes. Not the pilot of "X" bomber plane or helicopter, they acted on orders. Yes it might've not been "correct" of them but that's a completely other topic.

If you're going to get someone for warcrimes take the 4star generals making the plans and giving the orders, the people who acted the crimes are tools. Very much like; "It's the man who kills another man, not the gun or the bullet."
Name the shooter and the shoot'e, not the gun or the bullet. (if you know what I mean.)

[Bakis]

That's right. The entire flipping point about freedom of the press is you have to be an accredited journalist to qualify for protection in most countries and regions.

I HIGHLY doubt that is the case in the majority of the western world. It sure as hell aint the case in the scanadinavian countries.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

How so? Sure you are not thinking of the UK?

You mean like the Aussies being up UKs ass? ^^

[Deleted]

You mean like the Aussies being up UKs ass? ^^

Being part of a commonwealth does not mean they are up our ass. The Aussies are all too quick to scoff at the Brits, they are far from being creepers.

[Mayhem]

uhm i wonder under what jurisdiction wikileaks falls
and if he isn´t an accredited journalist, can he then be held accountable for what he did?
if he isn´t protected by freedom of speech in one country, he may be in another?
like in my country we have pretty much none existent protection for whistleblowers, but in the US there are laws to protect them (at least as far as i know)

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

When was the last time you saw a article or news segment that gave up the names, adresses and bank information of criminals or police officers? Because that's what Assange's "Wikileaks" did in many of the documents.

---------- Post added 2012-06-21 at 05:26 PM ----------

Its all total bullshit, he obviously didnt rape 2 people at the same time thats just some crappy fabrication the US government is making (and probably payed the sluts off aswell) its just baffling to think that anyday an agent can just come and throw you in jail regardless of what country you live in. I hope he gets set free and keeps releasing leaks of war crimes.

Crimes of war, yes.
Names and personal information of soldiers and/or sivilians, NO!

[Mayhem]

If you're going to get someone for warcrimes take the 4star generals making the plans and giving the orders, the people who acted the crimes are tools. Very much like; "It's the man who kills another man, not the gun or the bullet."
Name the shooter and the shoot'e, not the gun or the bullet. (if you know what I mean.)

uhm i don´t think that´s international law your talking here ... Generally, an officer or soldier is expected to be insubordinate to the point of mutiny if given an unlawful order, however. (yeah wikipedia but i think that´s correct)

[Deleted]

That's the thing, it was the US that did the crimes. Not the pilot of "X" bomber plane or helicopter, they acted on orders. Yes it might've not been "correct" of them but that's a completely other topic.

If you're going to get someone for warcrimes take the 4star generals making the plans and giving the orders, the people who acted the crimes are tools. Very much like; "It's the man who kills another man, not the gun or the bullet."
Name the shooter and the shoot'e, not the gun or the bullet. (if you know what I mean.)

That is bullshit, a soldier has the right to refuse to follow orders if he feels they are unlawful.

[Bakis]

That is bullshit, a soldier has the right to refuse to follow orders if he feels they are unlawful.

Was too tired to say that as well, playing WoT
Also it is the crews job, if we take the helicopter war crime, to visually identify their target when in an urban environment.
They never did, hardly the fault of a general..

[Deleted]

it's idiots like you that dont understand the basics of it. freedom of speech is EXACTLY that. say what ever the hell you fucking want

Actually, freedom of speech allows you to voice your opinions, nothing else.

Im not saying im against knowing what goverments really do but theres no denying he put a lot of peoples lives at risk.

[Bakis]

@Dawn Falcon
Speaking of freedom of press, there is a reason Assange applied for citizienship in Sweden. That would entitle him the protection of our freedom of press.
Reason for this is cos Sweden have one of the strongest freedom of press laws in the world.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

That is bullshit, a soldier has the right to refuse to follow orders if he feels they are unlawful.

Allright I'll bite.
Set yourself in the situation that you've been told that theres a group of people on a plane or in a car that are on their way to do acts of terrorism and you're the last chance to stop them, that could be the mission description! Now you have to chose mission description or objective according to the situation you're in, what do you do? Do you trust your superiors and do as told or do you take the risk and not do as ordered and let the terrorist attack go unstopped?

Yes you have a choice, but depending on the information given you don't.

[Deleted]

Allright I'll bite.
Set yourself in the situation that you've been told that theres a group of people on a plane or in a car that are on their way to do acts of terrorism and you're the last chance to stop them, that could be the mission description! Now you have to chose mission description or objective according to the situation you're in, what do you do? Do you trust your superiors and do as told or do you take the risk and not do as ordered and let the terrorist attack go unstopped?

Yes you have a choice, but depending on the information given you don't.

If they are confirmed as the targets we are after then we would stop them, if there was any doubt at all I would not give the order. The guys flying the chopper in wikileaks were unsure of their targets but fired anyway, they even joked about it on camera. I cannot remember the exact words but it was something like "I hope we got the right guys".

[Mayhem]

If they are confirmed as the targets we are after then we would stop them, if there was any doubt at all I would not give the order. The guys flying the chopper in wikileaks were unsure of their targets but fired anyway, they even joked about it on camera. I cannot remember the exact words but it was something like "I hope we got the right guys".

even worse when they joked about how some shouldn´t bring their kids to the fight o_O

[Bakis]

Allright I'll bite.
Set yourself in the situation that you've been told that theres a group of people on a plane or in a car that are on their way to do acts of terrorism and you're the last chance to stop them, that could be the mission description! Now you have to chose mission description or objective according to the situation you're in, what do you do? Do you trust your superiors and do as told or do you take the risk and not do as ordered and let the terrorist attack go unstopped?

Yes you have a choice, but depending on the information given you don't.

Are you saying that has been the case most of time?
I would argue that most war crimes commited are the "smalll" every day sceneario where person X is not really caring to identifying his target properly (I mean why take a chanse, some in your platoon might die if you dont shoot).

What you are describing is the problem with drone attacks, that you are entirely trusting the intel being fed to you and adding a limited possibility to visually confirm with the cameras and sensors.

[Deleted]

The rules of engagement are very specific, you do not take the shot unless you are 100% sure. If there is any doubt at all you do not fire. Standard NATO doctrine all allied forces should follow.