Thanks bigallan, that helps.
You can pack a lot of derision into very few words, it’s impressive, Wim. In my defense, I am listening and I am in no way certain despite an excess of words on the topic.
Also the Seth Rich thing I struggle to get past, it made me furious in a quite profound way and no doubt affects my judgement. Last time I bring that up, I promise FO50.
I’m sorry, I genuinely didn’t mean to be derisive.
I don’t even know about the Seth Rich thing.
No need to be sorry. I probably deserve it even if I now read your post straight and see your points as you intended. I find the whole thing confusing and yet keep talking.
The Seth Rich thing I’ll leave till another time. I’m obviously tired if I am misreading posts so badly.
Edit: it is obviously me that owes you an apology.
Nah, you’re cool.
The idea that WL disclosures have “compromised” lives are propagated by nat sec officals with zero evidence.
The U.S Govt couldn’t prove in Manning’s court martial that the Iraq/Afghan dumps compromised security.
The intelligence community want Assange bad because of Wikileaks Vault 7 leaks - the largest in CIA history. The stuff the CIA can do is alarming - I urge anyone to read on it.
Valerie Plame felt her life was compromised when she was outed - not by Wikileaks, but any public outing of operational spooks puts their lives in danger, as well as finishing their careers. By all accounts governments went into overdrive to protect their spooks after Wikileaks identified them.
I don’t object to exposing malpractice or government crimes, but exposing the identity of spooks was wrong and totally unnecessary… The US has double standards, as Libby’s sentence( for lying to investigators) was commuted and he was later pardoned. In any event, the US charges against Assange are much broader.
Wikileaks didn’t “identify” them - the David Leigh and Luke Harding of the Guardian negligently published a book which contained the passwords to an encrypted file containing unredacted sensitive information i.e. about various spooks.
You have to wonder if these ‘leaks’ originated from the mainstream press and therefore printed first hand if the proprietors/editors would be charged by US authorities - This is taking into account that the mainstream press would probably be more selective and prudent in what they published - It’s not the first time this kind of material has been published by the press.
The UK was badly bruised in its efforts to suppress the Spycathcer book. Malcolm Turnbull successfully defended Wright’s right to release his book, with a ruling in Wright’s favour by the Australian High Court ( some stirring words by Turnbull about freedom of speech). The European Court of Human Rights also found against the UK in its actions suppressing media reporting on Spycatcher.
In the current case by the Australian Government against Collarey and a former ASIS agent , they have been charged under the Intelligence Act for divulging information about ASIS ( bugging of the Timor Leste offices) . No charges were laid against the media or the publisher of Collarey’s book. Nor was any effort made to prevent release of the book, although Collarey was warned against publishing it.
Whether for legal or other reasons, governments are wary about chasing down the mainstream media.
With good reason - when governments start going after publishing of information in the public interest, we’re getting into Orwellian territory are we not?
Just reading that Assange’s Swedish lawyer stating that he had to be transferred to medical care just recently, as he could barely talk. This is grotesque. Why is the Australian gov’t at the very least demanding that he be transferred to a lower security prison? How is it that Assange is allowed to be in a supermax prison for ‘skipping bail’ ?
Whatever one thinks of him, this is ridiculous.
Meanwhile in the UK prison system somewhere they are torturing Assange.
Waterboarding? No, worse!
Laughing at the size of his genitals while he stands naked in front of them? No worse.
Electrifying his nipples ? No, worse!
No, they have taken away his internet.!
Is that in contravention of the Geneva Convention, The UN Human Rights convention. ?
I don’t think so, but if you wanted to devise a more effective punishment for him, no you could not.
Edit: Apparently he is in a bad state. Very sick. Not good.
He’s in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. You think someone who has ‘skipped bail’ deserves that kind of punishment? Why is he in a supermax prison for a crime that rarely involves prison time?
The US shouldn’t bother electing a president, the CIA is in charge. They are terrorists.
No he doesn’t deserve that kind of treatment on grounds of pure decency, and it is more like what Idi Amin, Hitler or Saddam would do to a prisoner, but like I said, they are not obliged to give him and laptop and a fast connection to the internet.
Wrt the roles of ASIO ( Spycatcher) and ASIS (Collarey ) the government would view these very differently. ASIO is about counterintelligence. ASIS runs active espionage/ intelligence operations.
In the case of ASIO it is clearly important to protect the identity of agents, but the identity of targets will very often be disclosed in the public domain soon after discovery ( and or failure of attempts to turn them). eg. Petrov, David Combe/Ivanov. But in the case of ASIS both the agent and the target are both highly sensitive and usually maintained as top secret information for decades.
ASIO is domestic, within Australia, ASIS is about overseas operations.
Spycatcher concerned UK actions to supress historic actions by the UK intelligence agency, revealed by a former UK intelligence agent. It was not seen as involving Australian agents.
The lives of ASIS agents are more at risk than those of ASIO agents. At the same time, the identity of ASIO agents is largely protected .
The Collarey case is not about revealing the identity of an ASIS agent, but about divulging the operations of ASIS operations by Collarey and an ASIS agent ( whose identity has not been revealed) .
I’m pro Assange, but I’ll play devil’s advocate here and say he’s probably in those conditions for protection purposes as he’s incredibly high profile. After all, the prisons don’t decide who they hold, and they would have certain procedures in place. In saying that, he shouldn’t be there in the first place.
I’d say it’s more about, and will be about deterrence factor.
Think refugees and Manus Island type deterrence.