A Nobel Peace Prize for Julian Assange?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope. And in fact nothing released is really damning...which is why I firmly believe this guy is nothing more than a fucktard looking to make a quick buck at our expense.

How do you know? You haven't read any of the cables.

You've told me what they say.

And you didn't accept what I said. You also said there wasn't enough context to form an opinion from what I posted of the cables. So how can you know that there's nothing damning in them?

 

[Toro]

Well, they gave one to Obama even though he didn't do anything other than be a black guy who replaced Bush. And they gave one to Gore because the Europeans absolutely love his cause. And they gave it to that microfinance guy, who creating something - a really neat something - that I still don't understand how it relates to peace.

So why not give it to Assange? It's not like he has done anything peaceful.

ftr Obama said the Chinese guy was more deserving than he.

I have heard that Obama was embarrassed by the prize.

But that's mushy Europeans for you.

 

[Jeremy]

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I'd give him the Nobel prize just to piss off the "let's-assassinate-people-we-don't-like" fascists.

 

[Rozman]

If they can give it to Obama and the rest why not....Hell you Libs can throw a party for him for all I care.

 

[hjmick]

It'd certainly be no less ridiculous that them giving it to Obama...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue of course is knowledge, just how much and what should be disseminated.

This is a tough, tough question.

This reminds me somewhat of the Pentagon Papers mess in the 1970s, which was instrumental in driving the final nail into the coffin of "trust the guys we elect because they know more and better than us."

 

[Foxfyre]

Despite the OP's description of the 'lawless Bush Administration', all I read re that from the Wikileaks is that Wikileaks backed up President Bush and WMD to the hilt including the infamous 'yellow cake' controversy. Of course we didn't see much of that in the mainstream press did we?

So is there some new revelation this week?

Nothing backs up Bush's assertions.

Nothing? Put Wikileaks George W Bush in your browser. You find lots and lots and lots of stuff like this:

Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman — a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution — researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."
The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush - Yahoo! News

 

[JimH52]

Why would someone who has endangered diplomats worldwide be considered a candidate. I think a lifetime jail sentence would be more in line.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why would someone who has endangered diplomats worldwide be considered a candidate. I think a lifetime jail sentence would be more in line.

I would agree that if he has compromised public servants in any inappropriate way, that should not go unpunished. But the author of the OP piece doesn't seem to think that has been the case. And I'm reading other stuff where folks haven't been endangered so much as embarrassed. If this guy ever does go on trial here, it could be the most interesting trial we have EVER had, unless the Administration forces them to have closed trial with the files sealed forever. But can they do that?

 

[mudwhistle]

DISCLAIMER: I am not--repeat NOT--offering a personal opinion on Julian Assange here though I do have a personal opinion about all that which I will probably share later.

But I will admit that this Paul Wachter piece did make me back up and rethink some of my opinion about all that:

Dec. 10) -- "[T]he Nobel Committee has chosen someone who has been an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and nonviolent means, including his support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law." -- statement by President Barack Obama on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

There is now another imprisoned "courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and nonviolent means" whom the Nobel Committee should be considering for next year's award: Julian Assange.

Through a series of leaks -- first of military documents concerning the United States' ongoing and doomed efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq; now of cables unveiling a hodgepodge of diplomatic duplicities -- Assange's organization, WikiLeaks, has offered up an unflattering portrayal of U.S. foreign policy.

It's the first real stab at a correction of the crusading, lawless Bush years that President Obama, the impulsive Nobel Committee's designee two years ago, has perpetuated.

The recent diplomatic leaks -- a mere 960 or so so far, all first published by the world's most prestigious newspapers -- have revealed, among many other outrages:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's illegal (under the U.S.-signed 1961 Vienna Treaty) ordering of her diplomatic employees to spy on United Nations personnel.

A U.S. policy that precludes U.S. personnel in Iraq from investigating atrocities committed against civilians.

Saudi Arabia is still the major funder of al-Qaida and an advocate for an "Arab army" to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But rather than calling for congressional investigations, American politicians and a largely sycophantic press have targeted the messenger.

Sarah Palin's recent tweets implicitly call for Assange's assassination. Without any evidence, Jeffrey Kuhner of the right-wing Washington Times writes that the leaks could lead to many Americans and their allies "being killed, tortured or targeted by insurgents." And that's also the White House line. (Also note that the administration is showing much more resolve going after Assange than Osama bin Laden, who killed 3,000 Americans and is probably, at this moment, happily sipping a cup of tea.). . .

More here:Opinion: Julian Assange Should Be Considered for Nobel Peace Prize

So what do you think? Is Assange a villain who is attempting to undermine the security and integrity of the USA? Or is he a hero and a wakeup call for indefensible corruption in government that nobody has the courage to address?

Did the quoted piece make any difference in how you look at this? Or do you see Wachter as being over the top and indefensible in his point of view?

Assange is merely a tool being used to force turmoil in this country and others.

Best thing we could do is just mow these people down. George Soros....all of those protestors because the threat they represent is beyond what anyone here will believe. It's the end of everything you know of. And it's being orchestrated by billionaires.

But of course we're too damned civilized to deal with this problem the only way it can be dealt with, and they're counting on that.

 

[daveman]

Can someone explain to me the Left's support for and idolization of criminals? I don't get it.

 

[Ravi]

How do you know? You haven't read any of the cables.

You've told me what they say.

And you didn't accept what I said. You also said there wasn't enough context to form an opinion from what I posted of the cables. So how can you know that there's nothing damning in them?

Because you would have posted the damning evidence.

 

[Ravi]

Can someone explain to me the Left's support for and idolization of criminals? I don't get it.

The left's?

 

[California Girl]

Can someone explain to me the Left's support for and idolization of criminals? I don't get it.

The left's?

Since you are left, and I am right, and we agree that Assange should be charged for his part in disseminating stolen information, I would venture that this is an issue that has no partisan 'side'. Only the moronic libertarians are high fiving the bastard.... but libertarians are, generally, very naive.

 

[Ravi]

Can someone explain to me the Left's support for and idolization of criminals? I don't get it.

The left's?

Since you are left, and I am right, and we agree that Assange should be charged for his part in disseminating stolen information, I would venture that this is an issue that has no partisan 'side'. Only the moronic libertarians are high fiving the bastard.... but libertarians are, generally, very naive.

sigh...damn, I hate it when we agree.

 

[California Girl]

The left's?

Since you are left, and I am right, and we agree that Assange should be charged for his part in disseminating stolen information, I would venture that this is an issue that has no partisan 'side'. Only the moronic libertarians are high fiving the bastard.... but libertarians are, generally, very naive.

sigh...damn, I hate it when we agree.

I hate it more than you do.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Can someone explain to me the Left's support for and idolization of criminals? I don't get it.

Can someone explain to me the "Right's" support for auto-declaring themselves judge, jury, and executioner? I don't get it.

Where's your Columbia Law degree, Dave?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, we are now deep into Page 3 of this thread and there have been a number of reasonable comments made by many of you.

But as the OP piece suggested, almost all of the attention seems to be directed at Assange himself and nobody seems interested in any of the provocative information he has been 'leaking'. He made the note that nobody in Congress seems to be interested in investigating the leaks themselves but rather are totally focused on Assange.

Why is that do you think?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I'm TOTALLY interested more on the leaked info, but I mean, it seemed like the focus of the OP is on Assange.

The fact that the entire focus of Congress is to demonize and sabre-rattle against Assange is hilarious too. Why is that? Because it's easy! You can get votes! If you go around investigating people for the things the leaks say, you're gonna ruffle feathers and its not as visible to the moronic, blood-thirsty public as just getting this evil guy with a foreign accent executed and assassinated.