|
|
|
Sweden drops charges against WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 19 May, 2017
Swedish prosecutors released a statement today saying that they will drop the preliminary investigation against WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.
"Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny has today decided to discontinue the preliminary investigation regarding suspected rape concerning Julian Assange," the office said in its statement.
Julian Assange has lived in Ecuador's embassy in London, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. May 2017 @ 01:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
That doesn't mean that a fair share of it isn't true, but with few exceptions, how do you know? The answer is you don't because it's not possible!
The same is true of any news media.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
I disagree that the documents have been under the microscopes of many people, because they've been in the hands of only a few people with questionable credentials.
Actually, you sort of have that flipped. With traditional news outlets a leaked document would be examined by only a handful of people who likely know little or nothing about the subject at hand. With WikiLeaks the documents are online, so anyone with an interest can look at them. This means that they are scrutinized more, and by more qualified people, than would ever be possible at an agency like CNN.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
But consider this! If the CIA or any other intelligence agency wanted to fudge documents to serve an end, then how would you or anyone know?
Most likely, we would know because they screwed it up...faking 10,000 emails for a fake leak in a way that 10,000 people wouldn't be able to find any mistakes in the fake would be very difficult. Also, it would require a lot of people to do it...and one of them would probably leak something about the operation to WikiLeaks.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
When the only people who can verify a documents authenticity are the ones who're doing the fudging, then what motive do they have to come clean?
Government agencies are not monolithic entities. They are made up of people, lots of individual people. In many cases these people spent their whole lives working to get where they are with the goal of making things better. That's why leaks happen in the first place.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
But this line is an "informal fallacy" because it assumes your statement is true because your premise is true, but there's no way to support that because it can't be proven.
You almost have the opposite end of that fallacy...you assume things to be incorrect because you cannot prove that they are correct...except that many of these items are well demonstrated to be correct. I know you keep coming back to that "CIA makes a fake leak for whatever reason" argument...but look at the leaks they have confirmed...why would they make that stuff up?
Originally posted by Sophocles:
My point has never been about finding a "bad document" or human error. It's been about not having anyway of knowing what is or isn't true.
Here's a hint...if a leak is worse than anything people would have imagined, and it is confirmed by the people that it gives a black eye to, then you know it is true...or at the very least you know that the people taking credit for doing something horrible are doing horrible things.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
No actually I'm not done here, and once again you're falling back on an, albeit different informal fallacy, termed shifting the burden of proof when there is no logical means to support your reasoning. You're making the assumption that if I accept what you're saying is true, then what I'm saying is false, and it's up to me to prove it. But if what you're saying is true, then you would've proven your point and the debate would be closed.
Ignoring that the point was not 100% accuracy, but rather better accuracy than any major news outlet, the burden of proof actually is on your side of this argument. This is because he can come up with 10,000 documents that are confirmed real without proving his case, while you would only need to come up with one half-important document that was incorrect to prove your case.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
You do know that there is no way to to prove or disprove the veracity of documents received on Wikileaks unless the identify of the sender can be verified, because as I've previously stated "Not every Wikileaks source is a Chelsea Manning!"
The person who leaked the document actually doesn't matter at all; it is about the content and scope of the documents. I realize that major news outlets like to show 2-3 lines of text from a leak and this makes them look like any jerk on Twitter could be the source...but the actual documents are huge. Sometimes they include video, sometimes computer code, sometimes tens of thousands of emails that match the other sides of emails in private hands. The amount of work required to create something like that would be staggering. The idea that someone would do it just to make themselves look bad, while preventing everyone involved from talking about it, and avoiding the inconsistencies that would be inevitable with the number of people required just goes beyond reasonable doubt. Not to mention, it would take a lot of time...by the time that such a project was done, checked, and rechecked, whatever operation it was intended to cover would either be over or already leaked.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
every document should be viewed suspiciously.
This is of course true. But let's imagine CNN or FOX or the like got a leak of something really hot; maybe that big hacking tools leak. They CAN'T publish that. There simply isn't enough freedom of the press to do it, and even if there was there would still be concerns about advertisers...and even if that wasn't an issue either, they don't have the staff to go through everything. Plus, their format doesn't fit with giant leaks...the media likes sound-bites; not 10,000 page documents that are as dry as sand. If not for WikiLeaks (or a site like WikiLeaks), this information would not come to light at all.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. May 2017 @ 10:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The same is true of any news media.
Wikileaks isn't a news media and its members aren't journalists. While it's possible for mainstream news media to make an error, when they do it's almost always discovered and a retraction follows. Professional journalists have a set a of standards that they're expected to follow such as "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability." Wikileaks has no standards. They receive anonymous information they're told is a leak of sorts, and they post it.
Quote:
Actually, you sort of have that flipped. With traditional news outlets a leaked document would be examined by only a handful of people who likely know little or nothing about the subject at hand. With WikiLeaks the documents are online, so anyone with an interest can look at them. This means that they are scrutinized more, and by more qualified people, than would ever be possible at an agency like CNN.
I see a number of errors in your thinking that need to be cleared up. Traditional news outlets will not only examine a document, but with few exceptions they have to verify the credibility of the source. Most of the time it's doubtful that Wikileaks know who their sources are, because it's an anonymous submission site. Members of the public scrutinizing a document hardly counts as a journalistic standard.
Quote:
The person who leaked the document actually doesn't matter at all; it is about the content and scope of the documents.
A leaked document is only as good as its source, and it does matter, because Wikileaks could be receiving documents from an agenda driven entity such as MI6, CIA, NSA,Massad,or any number of intelligence agencies.
Quote:
But this line is an "informal fallacy" because it assumes your statement is true because your premise is true, but there's no way to support that because it can't be proven.
What the above line means that because you assume your statement is true then your premise must also be true, and that's a fallacy.
Quote:
You almost have the opposite end of that fallacy...you assume things to be incorrect because you cannot prove that they are correct..
No I have it correct! Shifting the burden of proof occurs "when the person making an assumption that something is true, and what the opposition is alleging is false. The problem is that you're making an assumption that what you're saying is true even though you can't prove it, so you shift the burden of proof over to the opposition.
Quote:
Here's a hint...if a leak is worse than anything people would have imagined, and it is confirmed by the people that it gives a black eye to, then you know it is true.
Here's the problem with your thinking! There is no motive for a person involved in a leak to either confirm or deny a leak, because ambiguity is often a good defense.
Quote:
This is of course true. But let's imagine CNN or FOX or the like got a leak of something really hot; maybe that big hacking tools leak. They CAN'T publish that.
The news media can publish leaked classified documents, because their right to do is protected by the 1st Amendment. But just because they can publish something doesn't mean that they should. What if the information revealed stands to out an undercover agent working inside ISIS?
"There simply isn't enough freedom of the press to do it"
There is in the United States because it's protected by the Constitution, and unless the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court can't override the Constitution. To change the Constitution would exclude the president, and require a supermajority of 67% in both the House and the Senate. Then the proposed amendment must be sent to and approved by the Congresses in all 50 states, and then 75% of the states must agree for an Amendment to be approved. So until the 1st Amendment is amended, the U.S press is free to publish pretty much anything they want to as long as it isn't the form of a personal (libel) attack.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. May 2017 @ 12:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
"There simply isn't enough freedom of the press to do it"
There is in the United States because it's protected by the Constitution, and unless the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court can't override the Constitution. To change the Constitution would exclude the president, and require a supermajority of 67% in both the House and the Senate. Then the proposed amendment must be sent to and approved by the Congresses in all 50 states, and then 75% of the states must agree for an Amendment to be approved. So until the 1st Amendment is amended, the U.S press is free to publish pretty much anything they want to as long as it isn't the form of a personal (libel) attack.
It's adorable that you believe this. The last administration charged 6 leakers under the espionage act and the current administration has publicly said that reporters who publish leaked information should be tried the same.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. May 2017 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by Sophocles:
"There simply isn't enough freedom of the press to do it"
There is in the United States because it's protected by the Constitution, and unless the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court can't override the Constitution. To change the Constitution would exclude the president, and require a supermajority of 67% in both the House and the Senate. Then the proposed amendment must be sent to and approved by the Congresses in all 50 states, and then 75% of the states must agree for an Amendment to be approved. So until the 1st Amendment is amended, the U.S press is free to publish pretty much anything they want to as long as it isn't the form of a personal (libel) attack.
It's adorable that you believe this. The last administration charged 6 leakers under the espionage act and the current administration has publicly said that reporters who publish leaked information should be tried the same.
"It's adorable" how "you believe" that a news service such as the Washington Post, and a leaker such as Chelsea Manning are the same thing. A news service can if they choose print a leak, but that doesn't absolve a leaker from prosecution for passing on classified information. This is why most leaks in government occur covertly. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect a leaker against the release of classified information, but it does protect a news agency for printing it.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. May 2017 @ 18:19
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
RichardvonBacon
Junior Member
|
5. June 2017 @ 11:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
For the actual news I have to say good on him and finally they give up on these false accusations. Then there's lots of comments about US politics which I'd agree to some and disagree to others but to summarize my thoughts on current US president: he'll be out the picture by the end of the year.
|
|
