Wikileaks

[scroller]

But, yeah, let's not be hypocrites. If we go after Assange then we must go after the N.Y. Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post etc. etc. etc.

Of course, the Air Force has in fact started blocking the entirety of the websites Wikileaks, New York Times, Guardian, Le Monde, etc. So insanely, they might actually be willing to go there. Hope not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...121568506.html

[scroller]

Speaking of which, I thought this article in the New York Times was very interesting:

Europeans Criticize Fierce U.S. Response to Leaks

PARIS - For many Europeans, Washington’s fierce reaction to the flood of secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks displays imperial arrogance and hypocrisy, indicating a post-9/11 obsession with secrecy that contradicts American principles.

For Seumas Milne of The Guardian in London, which like The New York Times has published the latest WikiLeaks trove, the official American reaction “is tipping over toward derangement.” Most of the leaks are of low-level diplomatic cables, he noted, while concluding: “Not much truck with freedom of information, then, in the land of the free.”

German newspapers were similarly harsh. Even The Financial Times Deutschland (independent of the English-language Financial Times), said that “the already damaged reputation of the United States will only be further tattered with Assange’s new martyr status.” It added that “the openly embraced hope of the U.S. government that along with Assange, WikiLeaks will disappear from the scene, is questionable.”

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung wrote that Washington’s reputation had been damaged by the leaks. But the reputation of United States leaders “is being damaged much more right now as they attempt — with all their means — to muzzle WikiLeaks” and Mr. Assange. They are the first, the paper claimed, to have “used the power of the Internet against the United States. That is why they are being mercilessly pursued. That is why the government is betraying one of the principles of democracy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/wo...aks-react.html

[Kareninfife]

While politicians are baying for the head of Wikileaks, maybe that should be countered by a FULL INDEPENDENT investigation of 9/11. I bet you would see a number of senior politicians running for cover.

Also what about a trial of Clinton, GWB & Co. under the Universal Jurisdiction Act of the 4th Geneva Convention over the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other places? I bet you would not see any of them for dust.

Maybe yet another investigation of where these politicians get all their money from and who is "supporting" (say) Israeli propaganda and the regime there? - is that not an act of Treason against the American Public? Politicians are paid to support the American people - NOT anyone else.

[Paladin]

Some refer to long arm jurisdiction, basically that it is a resultant offense (took place elsewhere but had an effect here). I personally find this to be an absurd and dangerous argument, but it nevertheless is the position of some in the legal world.

Yes burbs, but's it's also illegal and is why there's no rush to attempt extradition because other countries will tell us to fuck off - especially sweden...

[Paladin]

Of course, the Air Force has in fact started blocking the entirety of the websites Wikileaks, New York Times, Guardian, Le Monde, etc. So insanely, they might actually be willing to go there. Hope not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...121568506.html

The military blocks so much shit on the net, i can't even pay some of my bills from work! they also log where you go...

[lisaparadise]

The military blocks so much shit on the net, i can't even pay some of my bills from work! they also log where you go...

what the hell are you talking about?this military is protecting your sorry ass so id show alittle more respect if i were you.

[manc_jay]

I'm pretty conservative in most matters, but all those assholes on TV are just plain stupid. No country can pass a law and apply it to non-citizens that are not in their country.

Hence the espionage act, can NOT be used against a non US citizen - UNLESS that person is in the US when he / she does something that would be subject to the act. Obviuosly a US citizen can be held accountable no matter where he is (for example the army private).

To argue otherwise would be to say we could / should have charged mao-tse tung, or joseph stalin with espionage. - Bullshit...

Now that army private - he's never getting out of jail. Good thing its not a declared war - or he'd be executed.

True but the last time the US declared war was against Nazi Germany. Too much of a hassle for them nowadays and gets around a lot of legal constraints.

[manc_jay]

what the hell are you talking about?this military is protecting your sorry ass so id show alittle more respect if i were you.

yawn

[Paladin]

what the hell are you talking about?this military is protecting your sorry ass so id show alittle more respect if i were you.

i guess i'm protecting my own sorry ass...

[Ben]

[QUOTE=Ben;845046]Andrew Napolitano states it correctly: "The Supreme Court says Julian Assange is protected. As long as what he distributes is in the public interest."
Again, Assange and/or Wikileaks haven't been charged with anything. (And... if Assange is guilty of rape, well, he should be thrown in a cage for a very long time.)
And, again, Bradley Manning committed a crime. He IS THE ONE who leaked the cables. Not Assange.
And if we go after Assange for publishing the cables, well, we have to go after the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post and The Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Then you're going down a very slippery slope.....
But, yeah, let's not be hypocrites. If we go after Assange then we must go after the N.Y. Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post etc. etc. etc.

/QUOTE]

I should underscore that Bradley Manning is the alleged perpetrator. He hasn't been convicted.



!