Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) granted asylum

[Neo]

Firstly Wikileaks has done *much* more than just the American Cables leaks, but that's all that interests most Americans.

Maggot paying for his treachery... If only all of the docs published involved Russia, China, and Iran, and there was no mention of any wrong doing by the white-knight Americans, then no doubt he wouldn't be so maggoty to you, no?

As for the whole 'typical American hating' nonsense, you must be very new indeed.

Wrong on all accounts. When you appoint yourself God and decide that life is less important than your self-aggrandizing, then I've got a problem with you, regardless of who's secrets are exposed. There are other, less compromising ways to expose war crimes without needlessly putting innocent people at risk.

As for that which you refer to as nonsense, I've read enuff of your tripe to know your stripes and I got you pegged there Nancy, spot on.

Have a blessed day and keep smiling, you just won the coveted "Pinhead", awarded to "sharp" people like you! The_Pinhead.jpg

[jimnyc]

What we have learned thus far, is that many think it's A-ok to infiltrate any government and steal confidential documents, give this confidential information to the world, and be held up as a hero. All governments going forth then, should simply place everything and anything on the internet immediately, accessible to the world so that everyone is on the same page. It doesn't matter if it gets people killed or puts others at risk, so long as there are no secrets!

[jimnyc]

Um, who put operatives in foreign lands at risk??? Assange? See. the way I see it, those operatives (e.g. spies) and the State put their lives at risk by putting them in foreign lands to spy. If we operate under the assumption its OK to spy because its in the best interest of the Govt/the people/USA what have you, OK; I'll accept that, but would you accept it if a foreign agency does so here in the US; Agenda 21 anyone??? What if it wasn't actually in the best interest of the USA? How would we know if the justification was deemed privileged?

We're talking about information being placed out there while operatives are still active. So I ask again, if they placed this information out there daily as things progressed, do you think they would have still captured/killed OBL? There's really little point in having spies or intelligence agencies if we are going to say the information they have or find is to immediately be released to the public.

And yes, these people took the risk going into foreign lands, with the knowledge that their government was protecting them and not disseminating information about them or their mission. If the government wasn't allowed to keep such things secret, who in their right mind would take a mission knowing the enemy also knows of their plans? Quite ridiculous, no? Not to mention potentially suicidal.

If Assange had released documents that were all after a certain age, but still confidential, I would still disagree with him but wouldn't be this dead set against him - as truth is being told and no lives are at risk. Kind of like the system we have as a matter of policy right now. Keep certain things confidential, and at a determined time we allow them for public consumption. But Assange released LIVE information, current information, NOT dated information, and information that placed others at risk.

[jimnyc]

Firstly Wikileaks has done *much* more than just the American Cables leaks, but that's all that interests most Americans.

Maggot paying for his treachery... If only all of the docs published involved Russia, China, and Iran, and there was no mention of any wrong doing by the white-knight Americans, then no doubt he wouldn't be so maggoty to you, no?

As for the whole 'typical American hating' nonsense, you must be very new indeed.

If the information caused an international rift between the USA and any of the named countries, I would still condemn Assange. Of course not of the same weight, but wrong is wrong. And his documents embarrassed and hurt much more than just the USA, and if you eliminated our confidential documents, I would still have pretty much a similar stance. If it were an American for example, and solely released documentation that embarrassed the UK and placed a few UK operatives at risk, my stance would be identical. These were traitorous actions towards quite a few nations, only the USA had the most documents and was the source of the theft.

[jimnyc]

On my opinion side - "they" should already have people setting up shop in Ecuador. If and when he arrives, wait for the dust to settle, and eliminate the target. This is what happens to traitors in most places anyway, and now we have a traitor that can't even stand behind his own actions. And nope, I really don't care that this would be an assassination, so save it. While certainly no Bin Laden, he's still an enemy of our country on the run.

[Noir]

What we have learned thus far, is that many think it's A-ok to infiltrate any government and steal confidential documents, give this confidential information to the world, and be held up as a hero. All governments going forth then, should simply place everything and anything on the internet immediately, accessible to the world so that everyone is on the same page. It doesn't matter if it gets people killed or puts others at risk, so long as there are no secrets!

...so Wikileaks didn't go through the documents, censoring out information that they regarded as serving only to put lives in danger?

[Noir]

On my opinion side - "they" should already have people setting up shop in Ecuador. If and when he arrives, wait for the dust to settle, and eliminate the target. This is what happens to traitors in most places anyway, and now we have a traitor that can't even stand behind his own actions. And nope, I really don't care that this would be an assassination, so save it. While certainly no Bin Laden, he's still an enemy of our country on the run.

Traitor to who? I was not aware he was american.

[jimnyc]

...so Wikileaks didn't go through the documents, censoring out information that they regarded as serving only to put lives in danger?

If they did, they failed, as they DID release documentation that placed lives in danger. Furthermore, you didn't get to black-out a handful of things and therefore claim your crime wasn't a crime. You say you read everything on this case, or were you only referring to the Swedish side of things? Because if you did read all of it you would know that he placed lives at risk, and it's easily found with a quick search.

[Neo]

Everything you said is spot on Jim, but you're wasting your time with people like Noir and jafar00 because they think, much like Assange I'm sure, that they are rightious in all things and you're just an anal retentive, flag waving American nationalist conservative, who cannot discern right from wrong.

[jimnyc]

Traitor to who? I was not aware he was american.

Oh, then in that case he might as well just take a vacation in Miami if he did no wrong!

The Espionage act of 1917. Both are clearly guilty of this crime, Assange and Manning. Maybe not a "traitor" by the modern definition, but a conspiracy to do as much in which he was involved. But guilty of the espionage act is an open and shut case, as if the act was written with his actions in mind.

[Noir]

If they did, they failed, as they DID release documentation that placed lives in danger. Furthermore, you didn't get to black-out a handful of things and therefore claim your crime wasn't a crime. You say you read everything on this case, or were you only referring to the Swedish side of things? Because if you did read all of it you would know that he placed lives at risk, and it's easily found with a quick search.

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.

When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

[Noir]

Oh, then in that case he might as well just take a vacation in Miami if he did no wrong!

The Espionage act of 1917. Both are clearly guilty of this crime, Assange and Manning. Maybe not a "traitor" by the modern definition, but a conspiracy to do as much in which he was involved. But guilty of the espionage act is an open and shut case, as if the act was written with his actions in mind.

As has already been pointed out by lawyers in the States, the wording of the Act is so broad that any News editor who reported what wikileaks reported could be charged and convicted. That's an awful lot of traitors...

[jimnyc]

Everything you said is spot on Jim, but you're wasting your time with people like Noir and jafar00 because they think, much like Assange I'm sure, that they are rightious in all things and you're just an anal retentive, flag waving American nationalist conservative, who cannot discern right from wrong.

Only wasting time as in I know they aren't likely to change their minds. But I still like to debate it nonetheless.

Funny thing is, and I won't waste my time searching, but some people defending Assange are the same people that see criminal actions for FAR less, and expect actions against such people. But when someone has a massive undertaking against the worlds largest government, and other governments, they see him as a hero. Odd.

Funny how you very rarely read of anyone any longer supporting Bradley Manning. I'm sure some of the wing nuts do, but by far and large he has been forgotten in this entire saga. You would think, that if this was all about justice and defense for those involved, that they would lend support, if not more support, for Manning since he is incarcerated. Based on the arguments presented, the only crime then that Manning would be guilty of is theft, simple theft. Why is he still imprisoned then, and why are these same people out supporting Assange and have left Manning for bait for the fishies?

He deserves to be sitting right where he is and more and more are realizing that and support for him has fizzled out and down to a minority.

[jimnyc]

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.

What crime did he commit that placed people at risk? What confidential documents did he release? Talk about apples and oranges, these 2 cases aren't even remotely close.

When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

Point me to where anyone here is stating that these troops shouldn't meet justice? But that wasn't part of their plan, or they would just have released what they thought were criminal actions being covered up. They releases everything and anything that they could get their hands on.

But it's you who misses the point. No matter how many crimes they bring to light, and no matter how much good intent they may have had - the still committed crimes.

[jafar00]

So Jimmy, do you now agree with me when I said in another thread that there should be limits placed upon freedom of speech when said freedom of speech may incite others to violence or cause people to lose their lives?