By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Wikileaks + US diplomacy = biggest "diplomatic" storm ever incoming !

NJ5 on 04 December 2010

Maybe a different thread should be created for the rape stuff.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
Fayceless on 04 December 2010
NJ5 said:

Maybe a different thread should be created for the rape stuff.


Seriously....while it is a serious accusation, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the leaked cables.

I for one am excited to see our politicians scrambling like this.  Makes me laugh on the inside.  Here's that open government Obama said he'd give us, shows us how open he really wants it to be, huh.

Also related, now PayPal has shut down WikiLeak's account.  It's sad to see prominent companies bowing to political pressure.  WikiLeaks is doing nothing illegal; you don't see them shutting down NY Times for the same thing.  These documents were given to WikiLeaks, it is therefore their right, under the first amendment, to publish them if they choose - a right which has been upheld in the past by the Supreme Court.

Of course, these companies are free to do business as they choose, just as WikiLeaks is free to distrubite the documents.

 

EDIT: Upon further study, the publishing of classified documents was never actually declared legal by the Supreme Court.  However, it is MY personal opinion that it is their right to free speech to publish the documents.  Many people, both regular people and legal experts and judges, would agree, as many surely disagree.



Farmageddon on 04 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
Farmageddon said:

KAZ

Not gonna quote anything, I mostly agree with you, but I think you may be a bit extremist or maybe passionate about this feminist/rape thing.

Do you think it's just as bad if you forcibly rape someone (withouth a condom) as if you "simply" deceive them and don't use a condom? I'm by no means saying the later is acceptable or anything near it, but I think there's a difference. Do you?

Also, is it normal for the Interpol to look for this kind of thing? I'm really asking as I don't know.

Anwyay, what I really wanted to say and my point on you being a little over board was that, yeah, it's kind of hard to convict for rape on these cloudy situations, but you can't really go all out and simply punish the guy by default. The way it is some women you abuse it (it's not most cases, I agree). If it was actually easy to convict it would happen a lot more, and that would really, really suck.

It's also completly against the well respected principle that you can't convict someone of a crime unless there's really good evidence, the whole burden of proof thing, etc, that's in place for any other kind of trial. These things just can be really nebulous by their nature but your approach seems to be the wrong one. I'm all for equality, but reversing the burden of proof in something this shady (not this specific case) is all but equality.

Edit: Oh, I do find the UK thing funny. There, I made an on-topic comment :P


Just as bad?  Of course not.  It's still rape though and a serious crime that should be punished.

I'm not asking he be "punished by default".  I'm saying that he should stand trial.  While everyone else is crying setup and that he should elude the authorties... based on very average circumstances and onesided leaks from his Lawyer.

Heck we don't even know if that's all he was charged with.  I've just been giving him the beenfit of the doubt and picking the "least bad" thing he could of been charged for.  The offical warrant reads Rape, Molestation and unlawful sexual cooercition.

That it's soley a condom issue is just his ex-laywers stance... and likely not the case since if it was.. Sweden couldn't extradite, cause the penalty isn't large enough.  

The ONLY offical report we have is some of the leaked police reports which say that consented sex became unconsented during the encounter. 


Sorry, I miss-read you before, so most of my post makes no sense :P

Yeah, well, I mostly agree with you. I could see thought, guilty or not, him being kind of scared to shit.

sapphi_snake said:
SamuelRSmith said:

She didn't get pregnant.

Well, he must be a very sensitive guy then...

LOL! I'd be as mad as I've ever been, and that's quite a lot :P

Also, it's quite understandable he'd be scared about it happening again, and that sucks. Oh, and you have no idea of the situation. He probably had no idea for a while if she just got pregnant or not. Now that sucks. Also what if he actually, you know, trusted the girl, adds even more to the first point. If you think it's just a "my bad" thing, really.

But yeah, this is all really off topic,it should just be dropped here.



Kasz216 on 04 December 2010
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:

As for the actual leaks... this one is pretty hilarious.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11917398

 

It makes the UK government sound like... I dunno. 

 

"we're still super special best friends right?"

 

This is my point though, about stuff that's funny... but there was no real reason to release it.

Especially odd given that the previous Labour leaders were accused of being US lapdogs. One of those things that anti-American Brits (if there are any) would be screwed about: neither party cares about their viewpoints

Well it had more to do with Barak Obama I think.

Tony Blair was seen by a lot of Republicans as a "British Successor to Ronald Reagan."  Gordon Brown wasn't particularly left wing either. (By US standards)

Take someone considered more Right wing then Reagan and a Democratic President... and well.   Had Labour stuck in I don't think they worry cause you have two people relativly on the same side.



Games4Fun on 04 December 2010

If they honestly wanted to stop the leaks they could have. They are using this as a big distraction to cover up something else, or they wanted this out for some other reason.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 December 2010
Games4Fun said:

If they honestly wanted to stop the leaks they could have. They are using this as a big distraction to cover up something else, or they wanted this out for some other reason.

How could they?  It's not like Wikileaks is the only one with this info, they passed the info along to a bunch of wikileaks "friends" too, so that if Wikileaks gets shut down for good the files could be unpackaged and spread.

Stopping this info from leaking is basically like trying to stop software piracy.

Once info hits the net you are out of luck.



Games4Fun on 04 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
Games4Fun said:

If they honestly wanted to stop the leaks they could have. They are using this as a big distraction to cover up something else, or they wanted this out for some other reason.

How could they?  It's not like Wikileaks is the only one with this info, they passed the info along to a bunch of wikileaks "friends" too, so that if Wikileaks gets shut down for good the files could be unpackaged and spread.

Stopping this info from leaking is basically like trying to stop software piracy.

Once info hits the net you are out of luck.


It would have been stopped before the actual leak of info to anyone and none of us ever would of known someone tried to pass on classified information to try and get out to the public.

I do agree thier is  noway to stop it now. Actually thier was no way to stop it once the public heard about it. If they had killed the people everyone would have thought much worse was hidden.

Im not saying im 100% right. I just had a talk with a respected professor for a bit on this and this is what I told her. Well actualy i said dont you think.....? She agreed she thinks things have been leaked before to serve as a distraction away from other events.

Think of it in away of UFO's. The goverment let that be thought and in many cases went a long with it. It served as a distraction and still does for many classified programs.

Its a slight of hand? If I said that correctly.



Kasz216 on 04 December 2010
Games4Fun said:
Kasz216 said:
Games4Fun said:

If they honestly wanted to stop the leaks they could have. They are using this as a big distraction to cover up something else, or they wanted this out for some other reason.

How could they?  It's not like Wikileaks is the only one with this info, they passed the info along to a bunch of wikileaks "friends" too, so that if Wikileaks gets shut down for good the files could be unpackaged and spread.

Stopping this info from leaking is basically like trying to stop software piracy.

Once info hits the net you are out of luck.


It would have been stopped before the actual leak of info to anyone and none of us ever would of known someone tried to pass on classified information to try and get out to the public.

I do agree thier is  noway to stop it now. Actually thier was no way to stop it once the public heard about it. If they had killed the people everyone would have thought much worse was hidden.

Im not saying im 100% right. I just had a talk with a respected professor for a bit on this and this is what I told her. Well actualy i said dont you think.....? She agreed she thinks things have been leaked before to serve as a distraction away from other events.

Think of it in away of UFO's. The goverment let that be thought and in many cases went a long with it. It served as a distraction and still does for many classified programs.

Its a slight of hand? If I said that correctly.

I think you overestimate the confidence of the US government.  The government's shit gets hacked all the time.  It's just that outside hackers don't know where to look for stuff before they are detected.

Someone in the military with access and training in the computer system?   Good Night, Irene.



Vashyo on 05 December 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180528/Wikileaks-new-diplomatic-cables-contain-UFO-details-says-Julian-Assange.html - New article, Finally about UFOs. :P



Games4Fun on 05 December 2010

Anyone found a working linkto WikiLeaks yet? Or are they just staying offline for the moment?