Assange Op Ed in The Australian newspaper

[daveman]

I repeat: What did Sweden do to piss them off?

You can ignore the question, but it's a valid one, and pretending it's not there is silly.

So one incident means all Muslims hate Sweden? The Swedes have troops over there. You will always get idiots of every ilk. What did some kids in a daycare centre do to piss of Timothy McVeigh?

Are you saying all Muslims hate America?

 

[daveman]

I repeat: What did Sweden do to piss them off?

You can ignore the question, but it's a valid one, and pretending it's not there is silly.

So one incident means all Muslims hate Sweden? The Swedes have troops over there. You will always get idiots of every ilk. What did some kids in a daycare centre do to piss of Timothy McVeigh?

no. not all muslims. but you do have to ask at some point what is it that would make someone blow himself up, taking innocents with him, just because someone made a comic he didn't like?

and yes, the terrorists would still hate us. that doesn't change. where the difference lies is among those who are moderate and aren't inclined to hate in the first instance.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah. Assange just "found" them.

You really need to contact his lawyer. I think you have a winning strategy.

"Your honor, the Defense will show that my client has no unauthorized classified documents in his possession, and he just found them!"

But surely the problem is that he published them, not that he had them in his possession. That is the beginning and end of your argument. Let's say in my scenario the guy stole the documents, or got spies to procure them - Times editor and Coulter should be extradicted for espionage, right?

BTW, go look up the definition of espionage. Unless he hired spies to get the docs, it doesn't even pass the giggle test.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

no. not all muslims. but you do have to ask at some point what is it that would make someone blow himself up, taking innocents with him, just because someone made a comic he didn't like?

and yes, the terrorists would still hate us. that doesn't change. where the difference lies is among those who are moderate and aren't inclined to hate in the first instance.

1) I love this "not all Muslims, but".... Yes, some nutter blew himself up. Tim McVeigh blew up a building. Bhuddist monks immoclated themselves in Viet Nam. So all ex-servicemen are nutters and should be judged by McVeigh's actions? All monks like setting fire to themselves.
2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...

 

[midcan5]

I find the outrage over Wikileaks hypocritical. It is curious how we so easily defend truth and then when it is uncomfortable run and hide. What happened to all this horsepucky about freedom of the press. How about the "Pentagon papers or deep Throat?" Or are the insiders the only ones allowed to spread information even when it is total BS.

"Jack Goldsmith has seven thoughts on Wikileaks, and they may surprise you:
“I find myself agreeing with those who think Assange is being unduly vilified. …”
“I do not understand why so much ire is directed at Assange and so little at the New York Times. …” The War Against Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and the First Amendment | The Moderate Voice

"Julian Assange, founder of the notorious website WikiLeaks, should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
Ultimately, of the 251,287 leaked dispatches dating back to 1966, none were labeled “top secret” and only 15,652, or 6 percent, were labeled “secret.” The rest carried the lower security classifications of “confidential” or “classified.”" THOMAS LUCENTE: Give WikiLeaks founder a medal, not jail time | wikileaks, assange, medal - Opinion - Northwest Florida Daily News

 

[daveman]

Yeah. Assange just "found" them.

You really need to contact his lawyer. I think you have a winning strategy.

"Your honor, the Defense will show that my client has no unauthorized classified documents in his possession, and he just found them!"

But surely the problem is that he published them, not that he had them in his possession. That is the beginning and end of your argument. Let's say in my scenario the guy stole the documents, or got spies to procure them - Times editor and Coulter should be extradicted for espionage, right?

BTW, go look up the definition of espionage. Unless he hired spies to get the docs, it doesn't even pass the giggle test.

The problem is both...unauthorized possession of classified information is a violation of Federal law.

I did look up the definition of espionage. Looks like it fits Assange. Any other silly ideas you need shot down?

 

[daveman]

2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...

Well, that's handy, isn't it? A splodeydope splatters himself all over downtown Stockholm, and it's a "lone gunman".

But any attacks directed at America are America's fault.

 

[Dr Grump]

I find the outrage over Wikileaks hypocritical. It is curious how we so easily defend truth and then when it is uncomfortable run and hide. What happened to all this horsepucky about freedom of the press. How about the "Pentagon papers or deep Throat?" Or are the insiders the only ones allowed to spread information even when it is total BS.

"Jack Goldsmith has seven thoughts on Wikileaks, and they may surprise you:
“I find myself agreeing with those who think Assange is being unduly vilified. …”
“I do not understand why so much ire is directed at Assange and so little at the New York Times. …” The War Against Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and the First Amendment | The Moderate Voice

"Julian Assange, founder of the notorious website WikiLeaks, should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
Ultimately, of the 251,287 leaked dispatches dating back to 1966, none were labeled “top secret” and only 15,652, or 6 percent, were labeled “secret.” The rest carried the lower security classifications of “confidential” or “classified.”" THOMAS LUCENTE: Give WikiLeaks founder a medal, not jail time | wikileaks, assange, medal - Opinion - Northwest Florida Daily News

This whole thing has lent evidence to something that I always thought and right-wing Americans. They don't give much creedence or thought to evidence. They work off sound bites.

ie: This is all they hear "Wikileaks" "Top secret" "put on website" "anti American" "damage our country" "has breached national security"..

What they don't do is ask simple, pertenant questions:
1) What do the documents ACTUALLY contain?
2) WHO has been harmed by this?
3) Are these documents actually affecting our national security?
4) What have we learned about our politicians and what they are doing on our behalf by reading these documents?

All they hear are the sound bites they are fed by partisan hacks - whether they be politicians or media personalities - and run with it.

It would be funny if its wasnt' so pathetic...

 

[jillian]

[

no. not all muslims. but you do have to ask at some point what is it that would make someone blow himself up, taking innocents with him, just because someone made a comic he didn't like?

and yes, the terrorists would still hate us. that doesn't change. where the difference lies is among those who are moderate and aren't inclined to hate in the first instance.

1) I love this "not all Muslims, but".... Yes, some nutter blew himself up. Tim McVeigh blew up a building. Bhuddist monks immoclated themselves in Viet Nam. So all ex-servicemen are nutters and should be judged by McVeigh's actions? All monks like setting fire to themselves.
2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...

you can try to make it one of those 'some of my best friends are things, but the reality is we've known for 30 years that the biggest problem of the 21st century was going to be jihadis. are there some bonkers christians? absotively. are their some nutcase jews? yep... like the one who blew away rabin and the one who fired his gun into the tomb of the patriarchs killing the muslims who were worshipping at the mosque they built there. and no, i'm not for 'profliling' as you know specifically because of people like timothy mcveigh. but the reality is that the jihadis will not like us no matter what.

what did spain do to them to warrant their subways being blown up?

you know, i'm all for finding alernative energy sources so we stop giving money to people who think give it to people who want to blow us up.

as to the why? there are a lot of reasons for jihadis. israel is a facile excuse as is our involvement in the mid-east.

do things like iraq make things worse? absolutely. is every situation like abu ghraib a recruiting poster for nutbars? yes. but 9.11 happened BEFORE those things.

 

[elvis]

[

no. not all muslims. but you do have to ask at some point what is it that would make someone blow himself up, taking innocents with him, just because someone made a comic he didn't like?

and yes, the terrorists would still hate us. that doesn't change. where the difference lies is among those who are moderate and aren't inclined to hate in the first instance.

1) I love this "not all Muslims, but".... Yes, some nutter blew himself up. Tim McVeigh blew up a building. Bhuddist monks immoclated themselves in Viet Nam. So all ex-servicemen are nutters and should be judged by McVeigh's actions? All monks like setting fire to themselves.
2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...

you can try to make it one of those 'some of my best friends are things, but the reality is we've known for 30 years that the biggest problem of the 21st century was going to be jihadis. are there some bonkers christians? absotively. are their some nutcase jews? yep... like the one who blew away rabin and the one who fired his gun into the tomb of the patriarchs killing the muslims who were worshipping at the mosque they built there. and no, i'm not for 'profliling' as you know specifically because of people like timothy mcveigh. but the reality is that the jihadis will not like us no matter what.

what did spain do to them to warrant their subways being blown up?

Iraq.....

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah. Assange just "found" them.

You really need to contact his lawyer. I think you have a winning strategy.

"Your honor, the Defense will show that my client has no unauthorized classified documents in his possession, and he just found them!"

But surely the problem is that he published them, not that he had them in his possession. That is the beginning and end of your argument. Let's say in my scenario the guy stole the documents, or got spies to procure them - Times editor and Coulter should be extradicted for espionage, right?

BTW, go look up the definition of espionage. Unless he hired spies to get the docs, it doesn't even pass the giggle test.

The problem is both...unauthorized possession of classified information is a violation of Federal law.

I did look up the definition of espionage. Looks like it fits Assange. Any other silly ideas you need shot down?

Wow, your own link says the CIA is dedicated to espionage...gonna go and arrest all the folk that work there? Cool.....

So in my scenario, if Coulter and the Times have unauthorised possession of classified information that is in violation of Cuban law, they should be extradicted? Cool...at least you're not a hypocrite...

 

[Dr Grump]

2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...

Well, that's handy, isn't it? A splodeydope splatters himself all over downtown Stockholm, and it's a "lone gunman".

But any attacks directed at America are America's fault.

There are one billion Muslims in the world. He was but one. What is one as a percentage of 1 billion....

Some could arguably be America's fault, vast majority not...

The thing that really cracks me up about you jingoistic righties - I know for a FACT that if you were living in some desert - let's say having a wedding - and some third party in a combat jet accidentally dropped a bomb on your wedding party causing 50 deaths (er, sorry, collateral damage), you would be furious, grab your peashooters and try and exact revenge. What makes you think some tribesman in Afghaistan is any different?

 

[Dr Grump]

[
you can try to make it one of those 'some of my best friends are things, but the reality is we've known for 30 years that the biggest problem of the 21st century was going to be jihadis. are there some bonkers christians? absotively. are their some nutcase jews? yep... like the one who blew away rabin and the one who fired his gun into the tomb of the patriarchs killing the muslims who were worshipping at the mosque they built there. and no, i'm not for 'profliling' as you know specifically because of people like timothy mcveigh. but the reality is that the jihadis will not like us no matter what.

what did spain do to them to warrant their subways being blown up?

you know, i'm all for finding alernative energy sources so we stop giving money to people who think give it to people who want to blow us up.

as to the why? there are a lot of reasons for jihadis. israel is a facile excuse as is our involvement in the mid-east.

do things like iraq make things worse? absolutely. is every situation like abu ghraib a recruiting poster for nutbars? yes. but 9.11 happened BEFORE those things.

Hold on a sec. Other than causing a lot of damage in their own countries, and trying to make points in others - USS Cole, 9-11, Kenyan embassies - what else have they done in the sense are they being indiscriminate? Are they terrorists? For sure. But why do you think they are doing so? Almost to a person they say it is the western world interfering in their world that is the problem.

<edit> Spain were in Iraq as mentioned by Elvis. They withdrew after the bombing. How many bombings have they had lately?
How about htis - the uS leaves the area and sees what happens. Also, the uS is to stop supporting Israel - after all it's just a facile excuse, right? Take away the 'excuse' and see what happens...

 

[daveman]

I find the outrage over Wikileaks hypocritical. It is curious how we so easily defend truth and then when it is uncomfortable run and hide. What happened to all this horsepucky about freedom of the press. How about the "Pentagon papers or deep Throat?" Or are the insiders the only ones allowed to spread information even when it is total BS.

"Jack Goldsmith has seven thoughts on Wikileaks, and they may surprise you:
“I find myself agreeing with those who think Assange is being unduly vilified. …”
“I do not understand why so much ire is directed at Assange and so little at the New York Times. …” The War Against Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and the First Amendment | The Moderate Voice

"Julian Assange, founder of the notorious website WikiLeaks, should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
Ultimately, of the 251,287 leaked dispatches dating back to 1966, none were labeled “top secret” and only 15,652, or 6 percent, were labeled “secret.” The rest carried the lower security classifications of “confidential” or “classified.”" THOMAS LUCENTE: Give WikiLeaks founder a medal, not jail time | wikileaks, assange, medal - Opinion - Northwest Florida Daily News

This whole thing has lent evidence to something that I always thought and right-wing Americans. They don't give much creedence or thought to evidence. They work off sound bites.

ie: This is all they hear "Wikileaks" "Top secret" "put on website" "anti American" "damage our country" "has breached national security"..

What they don't do is ask simple, pertenant questions:
1) What do the documents ACTUALLY contain?
2) WHO has been harmed by this?
3) Are these documents actually affecting our national security?
4) What have we learned about our politicians and what they are doing on our behalf by reading these documents?

All they hear are the sound bites they are fed by partisan hacks - whether they be politicians or media personalities - and run with it.

It would be funny if its wasnt' so pathetic...

See, this is where you're relying on your own spoon-fed sound bites instead of reality.

I signed the same non-disclosure agreement Manning did. And since he had a TS clearance, he signed it twice. He can't say he was unaware of the consequences of his actions, even though morons will try to excuse what he did because they're happy to see America's interests damaged.

Assange has also broken Federal law by being in possession of classified documents without authorization, despite some internet retard insisting he didn't have them.

The law doesn't specify a minimum quantity, nor does it specify a minimum classification. He could have just one document classified Confidential, and he'd still be breaking the law. Why are you incapable of understanding that? You sound like Whoopie Goldberg defending Roman Polanski by saying, "It wasn't rape-rape." Stupid, disgusting, and profoundly ignorant.

 

[daveman]

But surely the problem is that he published them, not that he had them in his possession. That is the beginning and end of your argument. Let's say in my scenario the guy stole the documents, or got spies to procure them - Times editor and Coulter should be extradicted for espionage, right?

BTW, go look up the definition of espionage. Unless he hired spies to get the docs, it doesn't even pass the giggle test.

The problem is both...unauthorized possession of classified information is a violation of Federal law.

I did look up the definition of espionage. Looks like it fits Assange. Any other silly ideas you need shot down?

Wow, your own link says the CIA is dedicated to espionage...gonna go and arrest all the folk that work there? Cool.....

If CIA agents are gathering intelligence overseas without diplomatic cover, they are subject to arrest and prosecution if they're caught.

But if you think the American Department of Justice is going to round up our own CIA agents, you're an idiot.

So in my scenario, if Coulter and the Times have unauthorised possession of classified information that is in violation of Cuban law, they should be extradicted? Cool...at least you're not a hypocrite...

I try not to be a hypocrite. And do you really think Cuba and the US have an extradition treaty?

 

[daveman]

2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...

Well, that's handy, isn't it? A splodeydope splatters himself all over downtown Stockholm, and it's a "lone gunman".

But any attacks directed at America are America's fault.

There are one billion Muslims in the world. He was but one. What is one as a percentage of 1 billion....

Some could arguably be America's fault, vast majority not...

The thing that really cracks me up about you jingoistic righties - I know for a FACT that if you were living in some desert - let's say having a wedding - and some third party in a combat jet accidentally dropped a bomb on your wedding party causing 50 deaths (er, sorry, collateral damage), you would be furious, grab your peashooters and try and exact revenge. What makes you think some tribesman in Afghaistan is any different?

I don't. What makes you think we deliberately target civilians?

 

[Dr Grump]

See, this is where you're relying on your own spoon-fed sound bites instead of reality.

I signed the same non-disclosure agreement Manning did. And since he had a TS clearance, he signed it twice. He can't say he was unaware of the consequences of his actions, even though morons will try to excuse what he did because they're happy to see America's interests damaged.

Assange has also broken Federal law by being in possession of classified documents without authorization, despite some internet retard insisting he didn't have them.

The law doesn't specify a minimum quantity, nor does it specify a minimum classification. He could have just one document classified Confidential, and he'd still be breaking the law. Why are you incapable of understanding that? You sound like Whoopie Goldberg defending Roman Polanski by saying, "It wasn't rape-rape." Stupid, disgusting, and profoundly ignorant.

Who was talking about Manning?

It is not Assange's Federal law, it is yours...

Why are you so ignorant that you believe anything your govt tells you?

 

[Dr Grump]

If CIA agents are gathering intelligence overseas without diplomatic cover, they are subject to arrest and prosecution if they're caught.

But if you think the American Department of Justice is going to round up our own CIA agents, you're an idiot.

I try not to be a hypocrite. And do you really think Cuba and the US have an extradition treaty?

1) But the CIA carry out espionage at your govt's request, no?
2) I don't expect your govt to round up CIA agents. I expect them to be hypocrites and the likes of you to be in lock-step with them, even though one of the big Neocon whackjob mantra's is "small govt"...
3) Oh, so it's not a moral dilemma with you then? So it's OK for a US citizen to break somebody else's law, but not vice versa?

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't. What makes you think we deliberately target civilians?

What makes you think that is even the point?

 

[midcan5]

Curious how so called top secret information can only be leaked when it supports the position of those in power. Consider the lead up to Iraq, the NYT distortions, Powell's UN BS, Cheney's 'we know where they are', etc etc etc. It proves one thing I have noted forever: media is conservative and corporate sponsored, Assange scared them with the truth.


"In contrast to the petabytes of data flotsam, half-truths and speculation that drift daily around the Internet, WikiLeaks spews forth unvarnished, sensitive truths." Misha Glenny