Thread: Wikileaks: Goooone

Originally Posted by disco2hse

No. He doesn't do that. He is only the front man.

He's a convicted hacker.

Originally Posted by MickS

He's a convicted hacker.

Oh, I see your logic.

He did in that case, therefore he did in this case. But, your logic is flawed,


[In 1987, after turning 16, Assange began _[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_%28computer_security%29"]_hacking under the name "Mendax" He and two other hackers joined to form a group which they named the International Subversives. In 1992, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking and was released on bond for good conduct after being fined AU$2100.]

Originally Posted by MickS

My heroes stand in front of a 40 foot wall of flame with a hose with barely enough pressure to splash your boots;

Only Stoopid ones


Martyn

Originally Posted by Bushie

Only Stoopid ones


Martyn

Lol smart arse!!


Yep, that would be me though!!!

Originally Posted by disco2hse

Oh, I see your logic.

He did in that case, therefore he did in this case. But, your logic is flawed,


[In 1987, after turning 16, Assange began _[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_%28computer_security%29"]_hacking under the name "Mendax" He and two other hackers joined to form a group which they named the International Subversives. In 1992, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking and was released on bond for good conduct after being fined AU$2100.]

Oh I'm sorry..maybe I didn't type slow enough for the kiwis . He is a convicted hackerrrrrrrrrrrrr.

There was no suggestion in my post that he has done that in the case of wikileaks. Others have. That's others have.....

Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by MickS

He's a convicted hacker.

Ned Kelly was a murderer. And your point is???

My 2c worth:

Irrespective of the info revealed, Assange has not done this for 'transperancy' or any other noble reason but for personal agrandisment in the hacker/internet world (just like most hackers etc).

The US might eventally get him, but as he was the 'publisher' of the info and not the 'thief', he can claim 1st amendment rights and thus any prosecution would fail.

As to the rape allegations, maybe they're false, but 1) there's better countries than Sweden for the US to try this sort of trick in to guarantee extradition; and 2) after listening to the girl's lawyer, it appears to be a 'removal of consent' issue and therefore something that needs to be argued. If you're trying to nail someone with trumped up charges, why not try something more solid?

Most of the info simply embarrases the pollies/diplomats and will probably lead to less transperancy rather than more.

Certain newspapers will make a lot of money out of it (and probably a few lawyers too).

Originally Posted by Jamo

My 2c worth:

Irrespective of the info revealed, Assange has not done this for 'transperancy' or any other noble reason but for personal agrandisment in the hacker/internet world (just like most hackers etc).

The US might eventally get him, but as he was the 'publisher' of the info and not the 'thief', he can claim 1st amendment rights and thus any prosecution would fail.

Assange is only the figure head for a group of people who are Wikileaks. Do we prosecute Rupert Murdock for everything News Limited or Fox News say - No

Julian Assange is an Australian Citizen - he has no US first amendment rights, that is only bestowed upon US Citizens or US companies.