Wikileaks (20 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
The law is fucking stupid. So they agreed to have sex, but did not agree to have sex without a condom? If Assange then has sex with them without a condom without their consent, that is rape. But rape like any other rape, meaning nonconsensual sex. This law is complete bollocks.
Unless the woman doesn't know what a condom looks like or didn't realise that they had sex without one.
Unless the woman doesn't know what a condom looks like or didn't realise that they had sex without one.
Its very likely that it will happen. Governments assassinate people all the time. No country with anything to hide (and that's no country) is going to care if he is murdered.
I saw journalists do a follow up on the survivors of that attack. Turns out that it was just a bunch of journalists and that van that went to pick up the wounded was a father taking his daughters to school. The father is dead.
Regarding whether Assange is hero or villain. The only possible reason for not supporting this man is having something to hide. Free information is an extreme rarity. To oppose such a thing opposes the very foundations and values of liberalism. And that's the basis for democracy.
I saw journalists do a follow up on the survivors of that attack. Turns out that it was just a bunch of journalists and that van that went to pick up the wounded was a father taking his daughters to school. The father is dead.
Regarding whether Assange is hero or villain. The only possible reason for not supporting this man is having something to hide. Free information is an extreme rarity. To oppose such a thing opposes the very foundations and values of liberalism. And that's the basis for democracy.
Well, considering Assange is using secondary information (he didn't take it himself but got it from a source) and is acting as a media outlet (Wikileaks is considered a media outlet) the distribution of the information is perfectly legal a la the Watergate scandal and the Deepthroat aftermath.
As for your example, it doesn't really compare. As a government isn't privy to personal privacy laws, libel, etc. I think the real issue that comes into play is if Assanges leaks indirectly cause harm to US citizens.
What Bush and Cheney did to that CIA agent a few years back is more along the lines of what your talking about.
As for your example, it doesn't really compare. As a government isn't privy to personal privacy laws, libel, etc. I think the real issue that comes into play is if Assanges leaks indirectly cause harm to US citizens.
What Bush and Cheney did to that CIA agent a few years back is more along the lines of what your talking about.
Martin, like a parked car in SF without an emergency brake, you are on a roll.
But you seem to be loosely basing this difference on the notion that government transparency must be absolute. If that's the case, the name of every anti-terrorist operative would be public domain and they would all be killed in a heartbeat with their covers compromised.
My point of using personal data with Zé T was to show that not everything needs to be, nor should be, public knowledge. And the rules for violating that may not be concrete, but they do cross a sense of legality by any nature of the word.
