|
Post by lionking on Oct 29, 2010 2:58:45 GMT -4
Then I guess Assange meets your expectations, he certainly seems typecast for the role he plays. Does he work for some intelligence agency? That would be big news.the documents have credibility. the person who leaked them might not be good, but you don't deal always with good people and expect only to receive information from good people. Regarding human rights vioaltions, reports flooding to US about the abuse went without investigations, and they handed in detainees to the iraqis when they knew that abuse will happen, which means taking shar in a way in the abuse instead of "teaching the iraqis democracy" www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/united-nations-call-obama-investigation-abuses-iraq
|
|
|
Post by slowloris on Nov 10, 2010 19:56:33 GMT -4
They should be prosecuted for endangering US Troops and giving support (in the form of intelligence) to the enemies of the United States. Can you cite the law involved here, or do we operate under the doctrine that the US has the right to imprison/kill anyone it doesn't like, with or without trial, for any reason? There was a time when I would not have stood up next to lionking on this, but people like you are turning me around. The US war effort in Iraq is the cleanest, most humane war that it's possible to fight. It is still a war, however. War? You mean with POWs, Geneva convention, that sort of thing?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 12, 2010 12:18:09 GMT -4
Can you cite the law involved here, or do we operate under the doctrine that the US has the right to imprison/kill anyone it doesn't like, with or without trial, for any reason? Yes, you're absolutely right! That's what I am arguing for - the ability to kill anyone I want at any time! It's very likely that some US citizen is the ultimate source of these leaks. That person or persons is/are guilty of at least breaking the laws concerning classified information. Yep. Although you'll note that our enemies aren't signatories of the Geneva conventions and don't represent any nation.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 12, 2010 14:04:52 GMT -4
It's very likely that some US citizen is the ultimate source of these leaks. That person or persons is/are guilty of at least breaking the laws concerning classified information. Whatever soldier or other US agent that had those files had a sworn duty to protect them and in releasing them has violated numerous laws. The charges could include treason, particularity if a chain of events could be established between the leak and the death of a U. S. agents or the significant undermining of the military's advantages. Assange may have violated a US law of of receiving and misusing stolen property. I suspect he will take a defensive measures of never setting foot on US territory rather than tempt fate. But if the US wants him bad enough some ally might just play football and pass him along on a warrant. He is prudent to press his case for residence in Sweden. The drama over the Swedish rape allegation continues with questions about alleged victims and Assange suing the government. News article give the impression that he thinks the US government is behind the investigation. The conspiracy buffs must be salivating.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 18, 2010 19:54:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Nov 30, 2010 3:46:15 GMT -4
Wikileaks' new: - Qatar says we lie to the Iranians and they lie to us. (Thnx God the hypocricy is revealed) -King Abdalla and several Arab states urges USA to bomb Iran. - Iran sent men and weapons through Iranian Red Crescent - USA thinks that its ally Karzai is of sick personality -Our previous PM Sanioura tells the americans that any solution for the Palestinians shouldn't be on the account of Lebanon [therefore he is agianst their naturalization i nLebanon opposite to what HA and co claim]
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 30, 2010 12:54:05 GMT -4
None of that is news, really. What is news is that we know who was the source of the leak. I hope PFC Manning enjoys his time in Federal Prison, though he should probably be convicted of Treason and potentially face the death penalty.
Figurative heads should also roll in the Army's computer security departments for leaving such obviously exploitable holes in what are supposed to be secure computers.
Some congressmen have also called to have Wikileaks listed as a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 30, 2010 16:46:15 GMT -4
To be fair, I think a lot of those leaks may well be "one person believes," not necessarily anything official. Certainly a lot of the petty stuff is probably individually based.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 1, 2010 6:44:32 GMT -4
A lot of what's been released so far is hardly surprising, makes you wonder why anybody thought it worth classifying. It might be embarrassing to the ambassadors to find their candid opinions of world leaders made public, but those opinions are widely shared even among those of us who haven't had the opportunity to meet said leaders.
The main eye-opener for me is the sheer magnitude of the hostility to Iran from the Arab leaders.
Did the stuff really have a circulation to three million people? How did they expect it not to leak with so many people seeing it?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 1, 2010 15:07:51 GMT -4
The super-secret Government Brainwashing Program?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 1, 2010 16:11:51 GMT -4
Some congressmen have also called to have Wikileaks listed as a terrorist organization. Nothing is more treasonous to authority than those who expose its secrets. This whole thing makes me ponder where the US press has been all this time. They are supposed to be digging up secrets that contradict what the government is saying and exposing them, aren't they? Why is it that they leave it to some half cocked Aussie?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 1, 2010 19:50:44 GMT -4
What's interesting is that so much attention is being (publicly) focussed on Assange, in spite of his fundamental irrelevance to the wikileaks site, as if hurting or discrediting him somehow alters the material facts of the leak or would hurt or discredit the site. It's almost as if Assange is setting himself up to be a martyr and variious and sundry governments are falling for it.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised (I'd even bet an internet cookie on it) if Assange has in his possession material evidence to the effect that he, personally, had absolutely nothing to do with the receiving, processing, or otherwise handling of the leaked data, beyond setting up the original site.
In fact I suspect that, if this goes on much longer, he'll arrange to land in the US with three lawyers and fifty members of the press on his flight just to get arrested and brought to trial for the express purpose of embarrassing the US justice system by not actually being guilty of anything significant.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 1, 2010 23:13:50 GMT -4
In fact I suspect that, if this goes on much longer, he'll arrange to land in the US with three lawyers and fifty members of the press on his flight just to get arrested and brought to trial for the express purpose of embarrassing the US justice system by not actually being guilty of anything significant. That would be an incredible risky gamble. Reports to date indicate that he personally decided to publish some U.S. documents against the better consideration of some of his "fellow travelers" at Wikipedia. I seems very unlikely that he is dong this to set up the government.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Dec 1, 2010 23:28:09 GMT -4
Here's a conspiracy theory: If the government didn't want Assange to leak, it would shut him down. Who's getting the most damage? Right now it's Hillary. Why would the current gov want to damage Hillary? It's not like she was planning to run against Obama...or IS she?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 2, 2010 2:11:43 GMT -4
Not a very realistic one.
|
|