Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 298
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.
    Well, I can't better this.

    As you'll have seen, Assange already took that route in our system, with his case going to the Supreme Court - and all this is done and dusted. No, Assange is evading justice, pure and simple, and going to extraordinary lengths to manage it.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    ... material that was never meant for public consumption, material with such damaging potential that lives were put in danger.
    Are you trying to say its OK for the government to have secrets; that the public is better off not knowing for their own protection??
    I simply cannot accept that ignorance of these facts is something we are better off not knowing. What's that expression, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've nothing to hide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    I cannot see why we have any 'duty' to care about HIS welfare !!
    Of course you don't see it; you've accepted gov't knows best and will do it for us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Assange chose his path, and in so taking it, he intruded in the matter of international balances to such an extent that he proved he had a contempt for others.
    ...government hiding the truth of its actions from its citizenry, (especially, against its citizenry).

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Assange is a parasite. Let him face justice as is required of him.

    And consider, Noir, that if Swedish sex charges against Assange really are 'trumped up', he could go there and have his day in court .. maybe even win court damages. BUT, instead, he's twisted and turned, evaded, kept away from his accusers - preferring to hole up in an Ecuadorian embassy, seeking and getting political asylum, rather than face his accusers !!

    Do you see nothing wrong with that picture, Noir ?
    I see plenty wrong with what Assange released...first and foremost, what the government was doing and continues to do with this witch-hunt.
    Tis how it goes. Govt does something, but claims it a national security interest-- which it probably is. Then, after x years pass, its no longer a national security interest, but the facts have long since been purged from the archives. Do you see nothing wrong with that?
    It reminds me of operation fast and foolish furious. Now maybe it was for the best; but then, why not release the information after its requested instead of claiming executive privilege/national security. Perhaps because it has less to do with the security of the nation's people and everything to do with the security of the nation's political elite. To say the people have a limited right to know the actions of their government, then how, pray tell, can webe expected to give the necessary informed consent to be governed-- the result would be , at best, enlightened absolutism, and oligarchical despotism quite likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Finally, consider that the Ecuadorian President - from what I've recently read - is anti-American, as Assange himself surely is. And as for the unholy alliance Assange has with a certain Marxist anti-American reporter called John Pilger, with Pilger having supported Assange in his efforts .. maybe the less said the better ?
    How on earth is it anti-american to expose government actions which violate the very foundation of a free people; unless, by anti-american, you mean being against the American government violating the Constitutional authority by which stands and allowing its minions to do the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    don't waste your sympathy. That's my advice.
    Ditto, only for the sympathy of the government. Did he break the law, assuredly; but don't waste your support for the hypocritical actions of government and their straw man witch hunt. That's my advice.
    Last edited by logroller; 08-17-2012 at 05:08 PM.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.
    Imagine a world where the government controls the information and the means of attaining it-- Where the courts are the only recourse, but the presentation and gathering of evidence is under the exclusive purview of government. No one should be above the law, and that includes the government IMO. I highly doubt Assange will receive anything resembling a fair trial under the auspices of a corrupt and self-preserving system of government hell-bent on preserving their exclusive right to information and control. Best to label him a sex-offender and traitor-- classic straw man!!! I mean seriously, is there any doubt, whatsoever, that if Assange is arrested he will end up convicted of leaking state secrets ?
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Are you trying to say its OK for the government to have secrets; that the public is better off not knowing for their own protection??
    I simply cannot accept that ignorance of these facts is something we are better off not knowing. What's that expression, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've nothing to hide.
    Our government has always held state secrets and confidential information, only viewable to a certain few, for national security reasons. Do you think everything and anything our government knows, including information gathered from our intelligence agencies, should therefore now be public information? Imagine the government keeping us up to date on the intel gathered about Osama, and what their planning was? Do you think being free and open with such information would have lead to the same results? The government holding secrets doesn't even come close to meaning they are hiding it because they did wrong. Our intelligence agencies and those who deal with them would be out of business by tomorrow if they were expected to share all of their information with the public. It's not only that it's OK for the government to have secrets - it's an absolute must that they have to keep certain things secret. Classified materials for example, that may contain information about operatives in a foreign land, most certainly should remain secret, or we are placing American lives in danger. Making sensitive information and classified documents accessible to the public is also making them accessible to the enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Imagine a world where the government controls the information and the means of attaining it-- Where the courts are the only recourse, but the presentation and gathering of evidence is under the exclusive purview of government. No one should be above the law, and that includes the government IMO. I highly doubt Assange will receive anything resembling a fair trial under the auspices of a corrupt and self-preserving system of government hell-bent on preserving their exclusive right to information and control. Best to label him a sex-offender and traitor-- classic straw man!!! I mean seriously, is there any doubt, whatsoever, that if Assange is arrested he will end up convicted of leaking state secrets ?
    I don't see how Assange can receive anything less than a fair trial, knowing the entire world would be watching. Laws are laws and trials are trials. They can't magically make things up as evidence, make up laws and put a man in prison without anyone seeing it. Either the rule of law stands or it doesn't. If a jury of his peers isn't good enough for him, then it's not good enough for anyone, and our justice system might as well be closed down.

    He'll end up being convicted if there is sufficient evidence to backup any charges brought against him, it's that simple. To think otherwise, and to say certain individuals and certain cases, should be above the judicial system and have the ability to avoid justice and hide as an alternative, doesn't make for good precedent.

    This should be handled no differently than any other case. "The people" believe a crime has been committed. They bring forth the defendant to the courts for justice, and a judge or jury of his peers will hear all of the evidence and decide whether or not the peoples case has any merit. We have a justice department and courts for a reason, to find the truth and hold those accountable that break laws. I haven't always thought it was fair the few times I had to go into court, but hiding and declaring myself above the law wasn't an option. Assange doesn't get to be treated differently. I believe if he is convicted it will be because of the facts brought forth, which the entire world will see. If he feels he got a raw deal, he'll have the ability to appeal his case.

    But back to the first portion of this post. Do you really think our government shouldn't be allowed to have anything kept secret or confidential?
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    I see plenty wrong with what Assange released...first and foremost, what the government was doing and continues to do with this witch-hunt.
    Tis how it goes. Govt does something, but claims it a national security interest-- which it probably is. Then, after x years pass, its no longer a national security interest, but the facts have long since been purged from the archives. Do you see nothing wrong with that?
    You do know that information he released put active operatives lives at risk in foreign lands? If what he released were only documents from archives that were no longer any type of threat, no problem. But that wasn't the case.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319423

    Default

    I think Jim has answered you to a great degree already. With that in mind ...

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Are you trying to say its OK for the government to have secrets; that the public is better off not knowing for their own protection??
    I simply cannot accept that ignorance of these facts is something we are better off not knowing. What's that expression, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've nothing to hide.
    You seem to be assuming that secrets are kept as some sort of automatically 'evil act', and that no good or protective purpose can be served by keeping them. But, every country has State secrets, and to release them can amount to treachery against the State.

    Consider, in this case, the truth of the fact that unplanned-for dissemination of material which - in the releasing - harms trust, skews previously-held perspectives ... nothing good was likely to come out of putting that in the public arena. Assange will have known that, but he lacked the will or the responsibility to care about the possible damage.

    Of course you don't see it; you've accepted gov't knows best and will do it for us.
    That isn't something to be automatically accepted .. but equally, you can't dismiss the truth of that, either !

    Consider this, if you will. Assange set himself up as judge and jury as to what should be known. What made HIS judgment altogether more deserving of acceptance than anyone else ???

    ...government hiding the truth of its actions from its citizenry, (especially, against its citizenry).
    I think Jim's already answered you.

    I see plenty wrong with what Assange released...first and foremost, what the government was doing and continues to do with this witch-hunt.
    Tis how it goes. Govt does something, but claims it a national security interest-- which it probably is. Then, after x years pass, its no longer a national security interest, but the facts have long since been purged from the archives. Do you see nothing wrong with that?
    But aren't you following in Assange's footsteps with that ? What makes you MORE expert, MORE deserving of an ability to act in judgment, than those whose secrets these were ? Is your own judgment immune from criticism ?

    And if you think it is ... well, just maybe, those you're criticising may have insights you lack ? A judgmental expertise you don't have ?

    It reminds me of operation fast and foolish furious. Now maybe it was for the best; but then, why not release the information after its requested instead of claiming executive privilege/national security. Perhaps because it has less to do with the security of the nation's people and everything to do with the security of the nation's political elite. To say the people have a limited right to know the actions of their government, then how, pray tell, can webe expected to give the necessary informed consent to be governed-- the result would be , at best, enlightened absolutism, and oligarchical despotism quite likely.
    There's a lot in your piece that presumes superior judgmental capacity. Do you know it's warranted ?

    And when you vote a Government into power, what do you vote for ? A manifesto ... an understanding of intended general direction, which then becomes refined according to ongoing circumstances as the process of Government proceeds day-by-day. What you DON'T do is to deman that every tiny detail of everything Government says or does is run past you, for you to adjudicate .. THAT is the process of Government, which you'd clog up with minutiae if you demanded anything like that level of feedback !

    How on earth is it anti-american to expose government actions which violate the very foundation of a free people; unless, by anti-american, you mean being against the American government violating the Constitutional authority by which stands and allowing its minions to do the same.
    Let me ask you in return what Assange's sympathies and biases have been, throughout all of this.

    Try judging him by his supporters. The Ecuadorian President, is he pro, or anti, American ?

    A long-standing ally of Assange is an Australian-born journalist called John Pilger (he's been living in the UK for decades). Pilger is HARD LEFT, and has written some very scathing anti-Western pieces before now. He's freelance, but he used to write for the one Communist newspaper Britain has, called the Morning Star, and these days writes pieces for the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.

    He used to have an association with the BBC, but they dropped him. He was too hardline in his views ...

    And by the way ... Wikileaks material, I understand, was disseminated via the Guardian ...

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/01/...ileaks-cables/


    The full, unredacted set of WikiLeaks cables is now available online and in readable form, courtesy of a three-way clash of egos between Julian Assange, disgruntled ex-WikiLeaks volunteer Daniel Domscheit-Berg and the Guardian’s senior journalists.

    The release places in potentially grave danger US diplomatic sources whose names have been removed from the publicly released cables.

    How? A document containing the full set of over a quarter of a million cables was placed online in encrypted form late last year. In what circumstances is unclear — according to different sources, it was done either by Julian Assange himself or, it now seems more likely, posted unwittingly by a WikiLeaks supporter, after material taken by Domscheit-Berg was returned to WikiLeaks. By that time, full unencrypted sets of the cables had already been passed by WikiLeaks to the The Guardian, which passed them to The New York Times against Assange’s wishes.

    In any event, the online material at that point was unreadable without a password.

    The problem was, the password was made available, by none other than The Guardian’s David Leigh, in his book released in February this year co-written with Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. An extract from the book, which was published after the encrypted material had gone online:

    Eventually, Assange capitulated. Late at night, after a two-hour debate, he started the process on one of his little netbooks that would enable Leigh to download the entire tranche of cables. The Guardian journalist had to set up the PGP encryption system on his laptop at home across the other side of London. Then he could feed in a password. Assange wrote down on a scrap of paper:

    CollectionOfHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#

    “That’s the password,” he said. “But you have to add one extra word when you type it in. You have to put in the word ‘Diplomatic’ before the word ‘History’ Can you remember that?” “I can remember that.” Leigh set off home, and successfully installed the PGP software.

    Leigh thus, as part of his effort to cash in on his once-intense but by then-soured relationship with Assange, had revealed the key to decrypting the entire set of cables that had been available online.
    So tell me - - are you 'impressed' with the handling involved ? Was it all done in a totally responsible manner, by people you know could be trusted ???

    Further links - see these, concerning Pilger.



    How about this little gem, asking for Blair to be prosecuted for falling in line with GW Bush ?

    http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/t...-be-prosecuted

    Or, this one, calling for civil disobedience as a protest against the start of the Iraq War ??

    http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/we-all-have-a-choice

    When Bush and Blair begin their illegal and immoral attack on a country that offers us no threat, we all have a choice.

    We can wring our hands and say there is nothing we can do in the face of such powerful piracy - or we can reclaim the democracy that has been so corrupted by an elected dictatorship (in Bush's case, unelected).

    There is only one responsible way to achieve the second goal. The polite term is civil disobedience. The street term is rebellion.
    Perhaps you have 'great faith' in Lefties like these ... who so radically oppose political decisions that they undemocratically set themselves up as arbiters of all THEY say is 'good and right', in total opposition to those you may elect to power ??

    Pilger and Assange were associates. Entrusting State secrets to hardline and wilfully subversive Lefties nobody has ever voted for -- is, I suggest, NOT A GOOD THING !!

    ASK YOURSELF IF YOU EVER VOTED FOR THEIR UNILATERALLY CHOSEN POLITICAL AGENDA !!
    Last edited by Drummond; 08-17-2012 at 08:37 PM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    You do know that information he released put active operatives lives at risk in foreign lands? If what he released were only documents from archives that were no longer any type of threat, no problem. But that wasn't the case.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Our government has always held state secrets and confidential information, only viewable to a certain few, for national security reasons. Do you think everything and anything our government knows, including information gathered from our intelligence agencies, should therefore now be public information? Imagine the government keeping us up to date on the intel gathered about Osama, and what their planning was? Do you think being free and open with such information would have lead to the same results? The government holding secrets doesn't even come close to meaning they are hiding it because they did wrong. Our intelligence agencies and those who deal with them would be out of business by tomorrow if they were expected to share all of their information with the public. It's not only that it's OK for the government to have secrets - it's an absolute must that they have to keep certain things secret. Classified materials for example, that may contain information about operatives in a foreign land, most certainly should remain secret, or we are placing American lives in danger. Making sensitive information and classified documents accessible to the public is also making them accessible to the enemy.
    Of course it is necessary, sometimes. During war, for example. During peace, no. We are not at war...as in, Congressionally declared war. What we are is war-mongering, plain and simple, and the world sees that, I see that, and if you're honest, you'll see that. This is the thing, I don't even care, not really. I think we assassinated Osama, and I'm glad we did. To answer your question, I don't think it would be bad to divulge the info which led to it. For example, why did Osama hate the US-- What led to that? Was it the US involvement in Iran and the Shah? Was it selling nuclear arms to Israel, propping up dictatorships Mubarak, Saddam, and the Al Sauds; they were in-line with our economic interests but, at the same, suppress political ideologies more in line with democratic and religious freedom? (Quick shout out to Revelarts) I can talk about the likelihood, but how many times have you dismissed such things as conspiracy theories for lack of hard evidence? "NONE" you would say--- evidence which, if it exists, is likely an issue of "national security" and thus, it would be impossible to present. Then when the FOIA restrictions on items of national security sunsets, the evidence, curiously, doesn't exist anymore thanks to, and I quote the CIA, "file purging." Its all lost to history Jim; and that bothers me because then, as now, the ramifications of these security are not only ongoing, but growing in intensity. I have good reason to be mad as hell; Wikileaks showed the depths to which our government will go to protect this nation, including the implementation of policies which violate it's own citizens' rights. Sorry Jim, that's not American.


    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    I don't see how Assange can receive anything less than a fair trial, knowing the entire world would be watching. Laws are laws and trials are trials. They can't magically make things up as evidence, make up laws and put a man in prison without anyone seeing it. Either the rule of law stands or it doesn't. If a jury of his peers isn't good enough for him, then it's not good enough for anyone, and our justice system might as well be closed down.
    I'll tell you how he won't get a fair trial. This is a matter of national security, right? So most of the evidence to be used against him will be shielded from the public record and eye. Likewise, there will be no allowances for what would, were it a private matter, entitle him to immunity from prosecution as a whistle-blower against government corruption; but no, that won't happen. Because A) national security and B) the evidence in his defense was illegally obtained. Nevermind the fact it was evidence illegally obtained about government regarding information illegally obtained by government-- the government hates competition, period. Your belief in the justice system is as admirable as it is naive-- one should suppose a tax isn't really a tax for some purposes

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    He'll end up being convicted if there is sufficient evidence to backup any charges brought against him,
    and a sympathetic justice system which will suppress evidence that could be used in his defense (see above)

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    it's that simple. To think otherwise, and to say certain individuals and certain cases, should be above the judicial system and have the ability to avoid justice and hide as an alternative, doesn't make for good precedent.
    All the rules will be special, because its a special case-- national security and all. There's ample precedent for our government hiding things to avoid the dispensation of justice-- GITMO!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    This should be handled no differently than any other case. "The people" believe a crime has been committed. They bring forth the defendant to the courts for justice, and a judge or jury of his peers will hear all of the evidence and decide whether or not the peoples case has any merit. We have a justice department and courts for a reason, to find the truth and hold those accountable that break laws. I haven't always thought it was fair the few times I had to go into court, but hiding and declaring myself above the law wasn't an option. Assange doesn't get to be treated differently. I believe if he is convicted it will be because of the facts brought forth, which the entire world will see. If he feels he got a raw deal, he'll have the ability to appeal his case.
    But back to the first portion of this post. Do you really think our government shouldn't be allowed to have anything kept secret or confidential?
    I answered that above, sometimes, for a limited period of time. And I have been in court where it wasn't fair, evidence to establish reasonable doubt was suppressed, I see no reason to believe Assange's trial would be any less subject to the whims of the bench.
    To me, what I question is who holds the government accountable? Do you really think the government can be trusted to hold itself accountable if it violates the rights of its citizens...as a fox guards the hen house?

    Its not as though I don't understand the government's reasoning; he broke our laws and he must face punishment, else everybody will do it. Justice-wise, that makes perfect sense; I'm with you, and when/if faced with a trial, I've little doubt he will be found guilty. Not to mention the egg in the face from being outdone at our own crony gamesmanship-- you poke a bear, you get mauled. But that doesn't diminish the severity and insidious nature of what Assange uncovered. Regardless of what it took to bring that to light, our government clearly broke the law by conspiring with corporations to violate the privacy of American citizens-- who punishes our government--Who is even capable of doing so? and if it goes unpunished, everybody in government will do it, right?

    This sort of clandestine activity in the interest of national defense has been going on for the better part of the last century, and near as I can tell, we're no safer than before... far less so IMHO. At a certain point you have to stop and think, what good has this done? Doing bad for a good cause hasn't actually made things better, its made things worse. The world isn't a safer place for Americans than it was at the beginning of the cold-war; terrorist attacks have increased in frequency of attempts and intensity of impact, leading to a decrease in our freedoms-- e.g. you can't knit on a plane due to it posing a threat-- There were recognized risks, supposedly unidentified threats preceding 9/11, yet I've heard of no airline which was aware of such a threat...but alas, I suppose that info was privileged, vital to the national security... yet still, we are left to trust them. You know what I trust, the flow of money, and there's plenty of money to be made in the information business. It reminds me of the Chinese, where the social necessity is the pitch, with crony capitalism the rub.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    San Dimas, California
    Posts
    2,025
    Thanks (Given)
    30
    Thanks (Received)
    236
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    703551

    Default

    For God's sake people, it's Friday night and I've had too many beers to read that wall of text!!!

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Limbo, AZ
    Posts
    259
    Thanks (Given)
    23
    Thanks (Received)
    217
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    19
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    522286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Noir, as well as many like him in the states, see no wrongdoing by Assange and his organization releasing confidential and stolen state secrets. They rather him as one who "fights the man" and is a hero to many.

    big_mistake.jpg



    Assange will get his due soon enuff, you can bet he's already been contracted out so it's just a matter of time b4 that maggot pays for his treachery.

    Noir is your typical example of a spoiled, America hating, ungreatfull, left-wing "World Citizen" types who will ALWAYS find fault with America, the only exceptions being that which a fellow leftist (like Obonzo) deems to be appropriate, then it's perfectly ok (see use of drones for assasinations, as an example, GITMO still in biz), lots of things that people of his ilk seem to ignore, excuse, or otherwise sanction, because it's "their" guy doing it.

    Did I mention that Liberals are hypocrites of the 1st Order as well?
    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

    Winston Churchill

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,988
    Thanks (Given)
    110
    Thanks (Received)
    165
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    433843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    This is a maniac who, for the sake of sensationalism (and maybe also to pursue some anti-Westernism ?) decided to take it upon himself to release material that was never meant for public consumption, material with such damaging potential that lives were put in danger.
    I see him as a hero. A champion of Freedom of Speech.
    So what if the material released makes western leaders look more corrupt than the worst of African tinpot dictators. This kind of checks and balances is what the world needs. Do you really know what unspeakables your government is doing in secret in your name?

    For example
    A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.
    http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasi...worst-one-yet/

    And you wonder why "they" hate you.
    Last edited by jafar00; 08-18-2012 at 04:13 AM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    12,358
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4760251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond

    Quite.

    See ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange...dition_hearing

    Assange has exhausted every legal avenue to fight extradition to Sweden, as after all, 'he is an innocent man with nothing to fear ..' ... !!
    No he has not. He has taken the legal position of claiming (and being granted) asylum in a foreign embassy.
    But the political pressure is so strong that Britain may storm an embassy office =/
    If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    12,358
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4760251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc
    Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.
    Speaks someone who hasn't read the judgements and evidence in the case. Read them for yourself and decide for yourself. Not what some newspaper, or journalist, or I have to say about it.

    I know for a fact that if this had happened in the UK he wouldn't be charged with sexual molestation, never mind rape. (Even the Swedish Prosecutor agrees with me on that, since she dismiss the arrest warrants and charges, before any wikileaks-America scandal...)
    If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    12,358
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4760251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neo

    <img src="http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3867"/>

    Assange will get his due soon enuff, you can bet he's already been contracted out so it's just a matter of time b4 that maggot pays for his treachery.

    Noir is your typical example of a spoiled, America hating, ungreatfull, left-wing "World Citizen" types who will ALWAYS find fault with America, the only exceptions being that which a fellow leftist (like Obonzo) deems to be appropriate, then it's perfectly ok (see use of drones for assasinations, as an example, GITMO still in biz), lots of things that people of his ilk seem to ignore, excuse, or otherwise sanction, because it's "their" guy doing it.

    Did I mention that Liberals are hypocrites of the 1st Order as well?
    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 you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Limbo, AZ
    Posts
    259
    Thanks (Given)
    23
    Thanks (Received)
    217
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    19
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    522286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jafar00 View Post
    I see him as a hero. A champion of Freedom of Speech.
    So what if the material released makes western leaders look more corrupt than the worst of African tinpot dictators. This kind of checks and balances is what the world needs. Do you really know what unspeakables your government is doing in secret in your name?

    For example

    http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasi...worst-one-yet/

    And you wonder why "they" hate you.

    Some how, I have a feeling that many people here may find you despicable, I know that I do. So you think that this scum is a hero do you? I guess that means that this douchebags' so called "free speech", supercedes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others by needlessly putting them and their families in harms way thru the exposure of their efforts in support of their freedom? Because that's what this asstool did by leaking everything, consequences to innocents, the very crutch of his defense, be damed.

    That makes the two of you not only 2 despicable peas in a pod, but hypocrites of the 1st order as well. Typical behavoir and attitude of a left-wing, anti-American, terrorist loving, malcontents.

    You clowns are so smart, you've cornered the market on what's right and whats wrong, isn't that right, hmmm? Why, I'll bet you believe 2 wrongs make a right as well?

    Well, I think you're smart too...by 1/2.

    Assange's a marked man, a.k.a. "a dead man walking" and I will celebrate his death with a bottle of the bubbly when that day arrives in the not so distant future.

    Bet it, it's bankable!
    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

    Winston Churchill

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums