It's another Poll! ;-) WIKILEAKS....

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Tommy H

It's interesting how there is suddenly a UK arrest warrent out for the guy on a completely unrelated charge.

Just happened to come out in the same week that all this went high profile.

They've been wanting Assange for a while now

The case was closed, then it mysteriously re-opened round about the time the leaks began

Rape/molestation charge, anonymity for the "victims" - evidence given in private to protect said anonymity

Bank accounts frozen

Paypal withdrawing services

DNS accounts suspended

Kicked off Amazon's cloud servers

DDoS attacks


F*** the hat, I'm buying one of these:

http://btjunkie.org/torrent/The-Yes-...ebaedd0c489589

download this and watch it's risk free as they released it torrent style as it is banned in the US.
It's all about decoys and money.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by specialone

Yeah but im sure they didnt just pluck totally innocent people off the street did they?
They obviously flagged up for something after being watched for a while, or id like to think that was the case anyway.

Like those reporters who got nicked under "anti terror legislation" for being somewhere near an arms fair.
They weren't buying C4 on eBay ffs.

That's the thing with police states, they don't want to nick completely innocent people. They want to be able to punish people for being guilty of something... where they might actually have just embarrassed the state a bit.

Like having a demonstration in a certain square in 1989?


Or even if someone has embarrassed you and there isn't some trumped up anti-terror law to hand... just dig up any crap to nick them for!

[MisterTommyH]

The point being that there is a fine line to be walked. Somewhere between holdinging people without charge, which is completely out of order, and indiscriminatly releasing information.

An important distinction is that no one has elected wikileaks and they are ultimately responsible to no-one.

Originally Posted by simesb

And most of it coming from governments claiming lives are being put at risk.

+1
Scare them and they will let you come up with new laws (no sorry legal statutes) to go against human rights!

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Like those reporters who got nicked under "anti terror legislation" for being somewhere near an arms fair.

They weren't buying C4 on eBay ffs.

One incident of how many?
All the peeps at guantanamo innocent?

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Tommy H

An important distinction is that no one has elected wikileaks and they are ultimately responsible to no-one.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Without whistleblowers who don't answer to anyone, there's be nowhere for people to reveal corruption without being punished by the corrupt people they were working for

The number of people calling for Bradley Manning to be executed is testament to the necessity of a portal like Wikileaks

They are trying to pass a bill so that war crimes cannot be trialed in UK courts.
for more info check out amnesty international.

[MisterTommyH]

Originally Posted by specialone

One incident of how many?
All the peeps at guantanamo innocent?

IMHO it shouldn't matter if they were innocent or not. They should be treated lawfully.

A government has no credibility if it doesn't operate within it's own legislation, but expects other to.

Originally Posted by simesb

They have no special skills for running the country, they are just proles like you and me who have grabbed some fleeting power. The real worry is the civil service (particularly the secret services) who are a self-serving organisation. "We need more money, but we can't tell you why because the security of the country is at stake;" I don't entirely trust them.

Yes, Gordon Brown was once just some Prole (He went to Kirkcaldy High School with my Dad), but he didn't just grab fleeting power, he's been involved in politics since his days at Edinburgh University and has been an MP since 1983. It's 30 odd years of experience that give him the "special skills" as you put it. He may not have been the best PM ever, but when it comes to his qualifications in terms of running a country he's leagues ahead of me, and I don't know what you do, but unless your a very experienced politician he's leagues ahead of you too.

As for the secret service, it's natural not to trust what you don't understand, but do you have any choice? Would the country be better off without a secret service?

Originally Posted by specialone

As much as i hate them and labour, i firmly believe they thought they were doing the right thing based on the 'evidence' presented to them (probably by wikileaks lol)

Not sure about that one, don't think Tony Blair was completely clueless and blameless there, but that's an entirely different debate.