Assange to face extradition

[Spymaster]

Indeed. Whistleblowing is making public evidence of (alleged) malpractice or wrongdoing. Espionage is covertly passing on information to another party. The former hopes to make the information public, the latter does not.

Whistleblowing for employees - GOV.UK

Espionage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this all comes down to "public interest" and who gets to decide what it is.

 

[brogdale]

Don't be stupid. Think about this and answer my question at #1997 before you canonise St Julian of Assange.

Before you waste anymore time on that line, I don't *like* what I see/hear of Asssange.

 

[Spymaster]

Before you waste anymore time on that line, I don't *like* what I see/hear of Asssange.

Cool.

Now answer my question in #1997.

 

[2hats]

Again, this all comes down to "public interest" and who gets to decide what it is.

I vote for members of the public rather than government goons and peons.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?

Not you nor me; if it wasn't for a lot of whistleblowers.

 

[Spymaster]

Whistle-blowing is, by definition, based upon the subjective perceptions of the individual(s) involved.

Bingo.

Now why should Assange and Snowden get a pass, but not the fascist who reports on leftists?

 

[danny la rouge]

Again, this al comes down to "public interest" and who gets to decide what it is.

No. It's the difference between disclosing a secret and making it public knowledge and passing on a secret with the intention of the secret being known only to the recipient. Ethical motivations aside, there's a difference in effect.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the fascist who reports on leftists?

Are there any examples of that?

 

[brogdale]

Cool.

Now answer my question in #1997.

Bingo.

Now why should Assange and Snowden get a pass, but not the fascist who reports on leftists?

Now conflating a whistle-blower and an 'editor' who decides to publish disclosure.
Snowden has got no pass from his employer, and neither would the hypothetical GCHQ employee.

 

[Spymaster]

Now conflating a whistle-blower and an 'editor' who decides to publish disclosure.

Purely because you're supporting Assange's non-rapey activities and someone else has referred to Snowden as a hero.

But you're avoiding the question.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Bingo.

Now why should Assange and Snowden get a pass, but not the fascist who reports on leftists?

A pass on what from whom?

 

[Spymaster]

A pass on what from whom?

On their "whisteblowing" activities, and legally (as that seems to be what some here are arguing).

 

[brogdale]

Purely because you're supporting Assange's non-rapey activities and someone else has referred to Snowden as a hero.

But you're avoiding the question.

You question demonstrates flawed logic.
The employee could only be considered a whistle-blower if he were attempting to expose wrong-doing against the public interest. A fascist could not credibly argue that he objected to state surveillance of leftists; his disclosure to a fascist publication, aside from breaching the OSA, would be treated as espionage.

 

[DotCommunist]

theres almost certainly elements within the american security apparatus who think snowden should be assasinated for treason and the rest want him in a supermax for life. Hows he got a pass from his former employer?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

On their "whisteblowing" activities, and legally (as that seems to be what some here are arguing).

The contradictions don't allow for a clean answer of the form you seem to want. The state is revealed to be breaking the laws it itself enforces. The whistleblower is held legally accountable by the same body that it has revealed to be breaking the law. The law itself is shown up as inconsistent. The nature of what has been revealed is the whistleblower's only protection - and yes, of course, that is a subjective judgement: you discover that the state is murdering people, say, and you decide to make this fact public; your judgement is that more people will agree with you that this disgusting behaviour needed to be revealed than will side with the state in thinking you shouldn't have revealed it. And you hope the state doesn't murder you next.

 

[danny la rouge]

 

[DexterTCN]

...The original offence was sexual...


You've given no coherent reasons for anything, as far as I can see, and are now reduced to attempting to smear others for "dissing" and having questionable motives. That kind of tells its own story, and it's not a happy one....

Firstly...it's an alleged offence.

Secondly....it's not a smear to challenge someone's post. You'll find no personal attacks or insults in my posts.

 

[J Ed]

Again this is completely subjective. You think Snowden is some kind of hero for confirming what most people suspected anyway. I think he's a tit for sacrificing himself on the alter of public interest, for nothing.

Before and for a while after the revelations (where they weren't censored) the narrative was 'of course none of this happens, how ridiculous' which of course quickly changed to 'of course this goes on, what are you some kind of naive idiot?'

 

[elbows]

Plus there is a world of difference between general suspicions about intelligence service capability, and specific details. The media hardly ever had anything concrete with which to generate stories about modern digital snooping capability. Snowden gave them lots of specifics, backed up by documents, which they could use.

This can make a lot of difference in practice. The difference between being able to write people off as paranoid fools who are making no real case using no proper evidence, and being able to write a well-informed article with interesting details that will not be dismissed in the same way at all. The former doesn't get a look-in when it comes to 'legitimate mainstream political debate' whereas the latter generates debate in that realm.

 

[teqniq]

Speaking of the man himself

 

[DexterTCN]

Edward Snowden ‏@Snowden Feb 5
Edward Snowden Retweeted AFP news agency

This writes a pass for every dictatorship to reject UN rulings. Dangerous precedent for UK/Sweden to set. #Assange

Edward Snowden added,

AFP news agency @AFP
#BREAKING Britain rejects UN panel ruling on Assange: government
6,782 retweets4,642 likes


Edward Snowden ‏@Snowden Feb 5
Judging UN ruling based on like or dislike of #Assange forgets that human rights defend principles by protecting blindly, best and worst.

 

[danny la rouge]

In which Wikileaks is caught out publishing a deliberate falsehood

 

[MAD-T-REX]

Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy

Ecuador has received a formal request from the Swedish authorities to interview Julian Assange, inside its London embassy, in a potential breakthrough to the long-running saga.

Progress?

Long said Ecuador’s legal department needed to examine the request, and must also view it in the context of the UN ruling and the lack of sworn guarantees from the US. Ecuador would also want assurances that the UK would not seek to prosecute Assange for avoiding arrest.

Nope! The same old delaying bollocks.

Assange will never agree to the interview, which is a legal prerequisite before he can be charged in Sweden. If Swedish law is similar to ours, the charging of Assange (which would likely follow the interview) would make the statute of limitation in 2020 irrelevant as time limits apply to instituting proceedings, not concluding them. Sweden could interview, charge and wait for however long it took for Assange to emerge.

 

[Yossarian]

Assange has been going on for months now about how he has some really damaging information on Hillary Clinton that he's going to release when the time is right - seems like a strange approach for an organization that used to claim to be devoted to total transparency, by this point it would be hilarious if somebody hacked the WikiLeaks files and leaked the information.

 

[mwgdrwg]

Assange has been going on for months now about how he has some really damaging information on Hillary Clinton that he's going to release when the time is right - seems like a strange approach for an organization that used to claim to be devoted to total transparency, by this point it would be hilarious if somebody hacked the WikiLeaks files and leaked the information.

She wanted "to drone this guy" according tto the Internet!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

is he still inside that fucking embassy?

What a berk!

 

[kebabking]

they must be really, really sick of having his fucking socks on the radiator...

 

[elbows]

Assange has been going on for months now about how he has some really damaging information on Hillary Clinton that he's going to release when the time is right - seems like a strange approach for an organization that used to claim to be devoted to total transparency, by this point it would be hilarious if somebody hacked the WikiLeaks files and leaked the information.

It's an approach that is entirely consistent with the shit stance on these matters that Assange/Wikileaks have taken for years. I ranted about it some years ago more effectively than I am able to repeat now, because I had suitable quotes from an Assange interview or two with a business magazine or newspaper and I don't have any of this detail to hand now.

From what I recall it seemed fairly clear at the time that he saw it as his right to harness whatever power and profit from the information, the timing of its release or its non-release, etc, as he could. He wasn't subtle about this at all and it seemed easy to find heaps of hypocrisy and contradiction at every turn.

 

[DotCommunist]

they must be really, really sick of having his fucking socks on the radiator...

having to lock their bedroom doors at night...

 

[butchersapron]

It's an approach that is entirely consistent with the shit stance on these matters that Assange/Wikileaks have taken for years. I ranted about it some years ago more effectively than I am able to repeat now, because I had suitable quotes from an Assange interview or two with a business magazine or newspaper and I don't have any of this detail to hand now.

From what I recall it seemed fairly clear at the time that he saw it as his right to harness whatever power and profit from the information, the timing of its release or its non-release, etc, as he could. He wasn't subtle about this at all and it seemed easy to find heaps of hypocrisy and contradiction at every turn.

He sold what he had - and under very exclusice enclsing terms, as i he then owned what he had been given - and used what he couldn't sell to further a highly individualised agenda. See releasing loads of stuff on Erdogan the day of the coup. It stinks. He stinks.