Prob best to wait
If the US military does end up murdering Bradley Manning this could be a very different movie.
A movie about the WikiLeaks drama looks set to get a sprinkling of stardust from Steven Spielberg, after the ET director reportedly secured the screen rights to a book chronicling the life of the whistleblower site's founder Julian Assange. According to the Guardian, a film will be "conceived as an investigative thriller in …
If the US military does end up murdering Bradley Manning this could be a very different movie.
. . .will be Manning dying.
We don't give toss about him - he's a septic.
We don't give a toss about Assange - he's an ex-convict.
We are happy to have the data and the others can get fucked.
Freedom of information usually has a very heavy price on it.
There are some things man was not meant to know...
(Fade to black)
C'mon do you really think that the secrecy laws that were put in to place were put there on a whim?
As to Manning dying?
They won't seek the death penalty on him and the burden is on Manning's prosecution to show that he had a 'dirty mind' that he *knew* that Wikileaks would act with recklessness and endanger US and others by supplying information to the enemy.
Manning is a dumb shite who didn't think of the consequences. I do suspect that Assange did in fact have direct communication with Manning and 'seduced' him in to providing the leaked information. And its up to the reader to interpret what I mean by 'seduced'.
That's very true.
Unfortunately us.mil seem intent on making an example of this dumb shite. He's already on suicide watch (as reported by El Reg). This seems little more than an attempt to break his spirit than to prevent him topping himself.
I really hope they don't execute this poor bastard but I fear they will.
"Hi Assange eStalker"
Worse than mere argumentum ad hominem, you accuse him of a crime that he has not committed in respect of this public figure (that's a very big hint that you might like to follow up). I refer you to the protection from harassment act 1997, a link for which I put up the last time this nonsensical accusation was thrown at the man. I also noted that there are millions of others to whom such an accusation could be made, were such lax evidentiary standards and reasoning applied.
As far as IMG is concerned, he has adduced quite a bit of evidence. Your failure to address it is, however, signal. All in defence of a man convicted on 24 accounts, a man who is marketing stolen confidential information, is about to use a pay wall for viewing, is all set to make a packet on his autobiog, is paid a whacking gurt big salary and has demonstrated himself to be lacking in concern for anti Taliban informants, and while equally determined to protect his own has engaged in anti semitism, even hiring an anti semite. There was some talk ISTR of using a site in Russia that is owned by a similarly squalid individual.
Oh yes, Julian the clean. The man who broke into Australian police computers to follow the investigation into his illicit hacking activities. Hmm.
As to the rest of it, such weak reasoning. This is all freetardia applied to democracy, and it does not work. It fails, but at least you are free to be so silly. YMLT think about that for a few minutes.
"Yeah, that or it could simply just be a joke rather than an accusation.
But you carry on interpreting things completely wrongly. I think you'll find that no matter how hard you try and pretend your quoting of the law actually means you have understood and interpreted it correctly you in fact haven't. Feel free to Google numerous court cases where this has been reiterated in the courts, also feel free to look up the recent case of two Daily Mail comment posters."
Show me then a "course of conduct" on the part of IMG or myself that is likely to cause fear and distress. Do it and, as you do, note that you are required in law to demonstrate behaviour not intent. Intent/cognitions are ruled out of the law because we are drawn back to the M'Naghten rules, which really do not work at all, as I am sure you know with your knowledge of law and psychology, right?. The onus is on you or others making such claims. Whilst you are at it YMLT took at the various Guardian, Telegraph and other newspaper articles on Assange, which go far further than IMG, who merely quotes the data. So come on then, pony up some data, NOW.
"Well, if by evidence you mean "Right wing US blogs" and other such tripe then yes you'd be right."
So, let me see now; from your argumenta, if it is from a right wing US blog it cannot be true (argumentum ad hominem; right wing blogs do not tell the truth), and if he quotes from right wing US blogs then either all of his material is from right wing blogs, or all of his material is false; a non sequitur argument, inasmuch as it does not follow from fact. This is all epistemology for the playground and it does not cut it, but I clap my hands with pleasure at your childish attempts at gravitas and erudition. You failed of course. Miserably. He quoted from the British courts you *dunce*. What education standard have you?
IMG has been quoting from the very British court and other official records, records which show in law that Assange flitted from Sweden before interview, *knowing* his presence was requested, that his Counsel pretended there had been no police contact with him but, in court, had to ADMIT there had been (how embarrassing). It goes deeper than that, and it is all on the official British court records.
What was that you said about stalking and misrepresentation? You'll find your words not even cold comfort for the Swedish counsel, whose bar association is about to investigate him on the basis of his admissions in a British court, but I am sure that you will try to know better, right?
Hell that was easy. Your risible and childish logic has undone you.
"On the topic of defamation and evidence, can you actually prove any of that?"
Tell me WTH you are alluding to and I will try. Oh, you mean the 24 convictions do you? Be my guest:
"It was not until five years after the police raid that the case again him was finalised. Pleading guilty to 24 charges, he was fined the equivalent of about £900 and placed on a good behaviour bond."
Somewhere I have the judges' response to this:
“Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution.”
It was brusque.
Want to see some more puppies? At home I have approaching half a gigabyte on this sordid indvidual. Lots more dirt.
"Or are you going to just incorrectly quote the law"
Aside from the fact that the correct term is 'misquote' (I'll note in passing that you like most freetards have bad English in common with Assange of "misjustice" fame), show me the incorrect quotation, nay, show me anything purporting to be a quotation per se, then focus on the term "course of conduct" in relation to supposed distress and anxiety in the convict, Assange, supposedly caused by IMG or even myself. There must be measurable consequences and he must, naturally, know of our words to experience these. As you labour, bear in mind that both my and IMGs posts are nothing compared to what has already been done both in the media and in law (!) thus meaning that Assange, Manning or whomever have no credible claim in law and, finally, these are the things that a "public figure" has to tolerate in the field of their claimed expertise. IOW, IMG is acting within his rights, under both the UK and USA jurisdiction (do note that) to comment on and criticise a public figure.
"and then proceed to breach it yourself"
You will now show me where I am in breach. The onus is on you to do so, so do it now.
"by making knowingly invalid statements about the guy and attempting to further defame him with hearsay?"
Which "guy"? Which "invalid statements", and explain the law of defammation in relation to publicly available material (non confidential/classified I should add) in relation to this "guy", while specifying which.
This is a middling attempt, but really a crock. You will have to do better than that. I give you 1/10. Failed on grounds of poor logic, no quotations from law, no evidence adduced at all in fact, just a rutabaga of ad hominem comments that wouldn't even stretch a toddler's brain.
Its a fascinating discussion you are having with AC, but it seems to be going nowhere. Can we just all agree (a) to disagree, (b) that you are completely full of shit.
AC, but not the original AC.
any royalties or other payments accrue to the benefit of Wikileaks rather than individuals - whomever they may be.
Maybe you should petition the Pope to make Julian a Saint. The odd are better.
Maybe you should petition the Pope to make Julian a Saint. The odd are better."
If you listened to the Radio 4 'Today Programme' interview by John Humphrys (and I hope that you did, if only for the laughs!), Assange spoke of being in the enviable position where he can be martyred without dying. It's here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm and the transcript is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm Listen to him avoid the issue, listen to him describe concerns over HIV infection as 'ridiculous', that the women were 'in a tizzy'
So, perhaps Jules will become the first e-Saint. There'll be iPod apps, for Jules is an Apple lover, pay wall worship sites, pirate bay free Jules songs. Yes, I can see it now; steal-classified-information-to-celebrate-the-Sainthood-of-Jules-day:
"Q: You do see yourself as a martyr here.
JA: Well, you know, in a very beneficial position, if you can be martyred without dying. And we've had a little bit of that over the past ten days. And if this case goes on, we will have more. "
"It's also worth pointing out that Assange at least seems mature enough not to devolve into petty slanging matches- I notice he hasn't wasted his time falling for the Domscheit-Berg troll bait."
It is interesting that you describe RL interactions as "troll bait". It's IMNSVHO immature.
Likewise, it is not the mark of a mature man to describe the concerns of women with whom he'd had unprotected sex thus:
"they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases"
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm )
In fact it is immature. Perhaps this can be attributed to the lack of a paternal rôle model, it being that each half of the parental dyad contributes a variety of skills to a child.
Here he is, created all of this fodder for a movie.
He won't get a time because he's not the author of the work, nor did he endear himself to the reporters who wrote the book.
He won't be portrayed in a positive light, at least not as the hero in his own mind.
Reality sucks don't it? :-)
Didn't you know that success is measured cinematographically? If you're not one of the glitterati, not in with tinsel town, then you ain't made it yet. :-)
My wife and I think that John Cusacks, if he can change his accent a bit, would be a convincing actor to play Julian Assange.
Sorry Cusack not thin enough, or pasty enough.
I was thinking Anderson Cooper if he let his hair grow out.
This strikes me as a remarkably bad idea in pretty much every way.
The various Wikileaks Movie projects underway are very exciting. This story has touched a nerve on so many levels. From the ridiculous to the serious, there are many elements around which to craft an outstanding movie. Let's hope one of the studios does a proper job. If that happens the movie will be well worth the price of admission. Cheers from the Wikileaks-Movie.com team.
It needs to be directed by Uwe Boll.