Karma's a bitch: The Swedish case against Julian Assange is leaked.

[foghorn67]

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of what you just said. I'm not sure how it counters what I said. I said wrongly prosecuted...

Then we agree? :awe:

 

[Bootleg Betty]

wow, ten posts. Probably google search trolling. Where is your degree?

So people with 10 posts can't have opinions now?

Also, I like the idea that most of the haters missed that US laws don't apply outside of US territory. Why should he care whether some document is classified in US, if he's not US citizen or in US territory?

 

[Narmer]

So people with 10 posts can't have opinions now?

Also, I like the idea that most of the haters missed that US laws don't apply outside of US territory. Why should he care whether some document is classified in US, if he's not US citizen or in US territory?

It may not explicitly apply but we can easily extradite him since our allies respect our laws.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

So people with 10 posts can't have opinions now?

Also, I like the idea that most of the haters missed that US laws don't apply outside of US territory. Why should he care whether some document is classified in US, if he's not US citizen or in US territory?

ive sort of wondered this myself, all of the sudden u.s. law is international law???

 

[nublikescake]

You can't do things without consequences. You want to blow the whistle, leak stolen docs, either way you think of it you have to think about what can happen.
Soldier leaking info? Expect the consequences. So what you are holding someone responsible. Why is that responsibility missed on the individual?
Why should the law ignore someone that is hero?
This is how everything is wrong these days. You guys say you want justice to be blind, but it's about popularity.
Assange, Manning...should be just as responsible as you want the government to be.

You're missing the whole point. The point is not about consequences for leaking this info. It's about the need for/the ethics of leaking confidential information. Not only would most people in the world agree, its basic common sense and the minimum that human decency demands of a person to expose wrongdoing or injustice even if there are consequences to be faced.

There's a good chance that Pvt. Manning will get in trouble or that Assange might be harmed in some way but anyone who does that is would be committing an injustice.

 

[Eli]

Then we agree? :awe:

It appears so! :awe:

 

[dwell]

I heard one of these women was linked to the CIA?

Were did you hear that? The 9/11 conspiracy forums?

 

[nublikescake]

ive sort of wondered this myself, all of the sudden u.s. law is international law???

That's one of the perks that comes with being a "superpower".

 

[nublikescake]

fanatical devotion to corrupt government

That pretty much describes the behavior of many on this forum. They just can't see through it. It's one of the primary reasons the U.S. is now hated in many parts of the world. But of course I should move to North Korea or Iran and test the commitment to freedom of speech there. That's the only way I can legitimately criticize U.S. government's actions.

Except I'm not American nor do I live in the U.S.

 

[Narmer]

That pretty much describes the behavior of many on this forum. They just can't see through it. It's one of the primary reasons the U.S. is now hated in many parts of the world. But of course I should move to North Korea or Iran and test the commitment to freedom of speech there. That's the only way I can legitimately criticize U.S. government's actions.

Except I'm not American nor do I live in the U.S.

People hate us out of envy/jealousy. They all want to rule the world but can't. It hurts to be second class to Americans, doesn't it? Doesn't it?

 

[Bootleg Betty]

It may not explicitly apply but we can easily extradite him since our allies respect our laws.

That might be problematic, as if I recall what I was told about US law, he didn't do actually anything illegal, unless you use some kind of "catch-all" espionage or terrorism law.

What I heard (and I repeat it's just what I heard so someone may correct me if I'm wrong), leaking classified documents is actually illegal only if you have security clearance. Otherwise you can hold classified documents, or do anything you want with them as it's protected under Free Speech.

So the question is what did he actually do?

This is actually easier with that Manning guy. Though you could argue that he pledged to protect the US constitution from enemies both inside and outside and you could count "the government" as enemy to the constitution, but I don't really see that working with military court.

 

[Eli]

You're missing the whole point. The point is not about consequences for leaking this info. It's about the need for/the ethics of leaking confidential information. Not only would most people in the world agree, its basic common sense and the minimum that human decency demands of a person to expose wrongdoing or injustice even if there are consequences to be faced.

There's a good chance that Pvt. Manning will get in trouble or that Assange might be harmed in some way but anyone who does that is would be committing an injustice.

Agreed.

 

[Narmer]

That might be problematic, as if I recall what I was told about US law, he didn't do actually anything illegal, unless you use some kind of "catch-all" espionage or terrorism law.

What I heard (and I repeat it's just what I heard so someone may correct me if I'm wrong), leaking classified documents is actually illegal only if you have security clearance. Otherwise you can hold classified documents, or do anything you want with them as it's protected under Free Speech.

So the question is what did he actually do?

This is actually easier with that Manning guy. Though you could argue that he pledged to protect the US constitution from enemies both inside and outside and you could count "the government" as enemy to the constitution, but I don't really see that working with military court.

Well, the DoJ is working hard on this aspect and I expect them to do the right thing.

 

[zinfamous]

So. We. Agree.


And .. the assault weapons ban in California can be argued to violate Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16:




Yet... noone seems to want to challenge the law.


And you have yet to show how a potentially illegal law in CALIFORNIA... makes the United States Government ... Tyrannical.

why can't people simply be armed with, I don't know..pikes or something? You claim that there must be a clear language, clearly stated, yet you want to assume that we must infer what the text means by "arms."

I haven't seen a passage that says "firearms" or "modernized weaponry, to meet the demands of the era." or something like that.

I see nothing in that amendment saying that we have to have guns; especially for those that claim that such things are explicit, and we must follow the text exactly as written. Such proponents don't like to allow for the fact that they are, indeed, inferring their own meaning into these words.

/devil's advocate

 

[nublikescake]

People hate us out of envy/jealousy. They all want to rule the world but can't. It hurts to be second class to Americans, doesn't it? Doesn't it?

Lol. That's it. You hit the nail on the head.

If you care to see beyond your narcissistic inclinations, what Wikileaks is doing has the potential to help the U.S. as well by allowing the U.S. government to rectify its conduct and play fair on the world stage. It can choose to ignore and suppress such information and its bearers and continue to throw its weight around like a bully, though at its own peril.

 

[schneiderguy]

why can't people simply be armed with, I don't know..pikes or something? You claim that there must be a clear language, clearly stated, yet you want to assume that we must infer what the text means by "arms."

I haven't seen a passage that says "firearms" or "modernized weaponry, to meet the demands of the era." or something like that.

I see nothing in that amendment saying that we have to have guns; especially for those that claim that such things are explicit, and we must follow the text exactly as written. Such proponents don't like to allow for the fact that they are, indeed, inferring their own meaning into these words.

/devil's advocate

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't say "the right to keep and bear pikes shall not be infringed" or "the right to keep and bear single shot muskets shall not be infringed". It says "the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed". Arms = weapons. Therefore laws against owning any kind of weapon = infringing my right to keep and bear arms = unconstitutional

 

[foghorn67]

So people with 10 posts can't have opinions now?

Also, I like the idea that most of the haters missed that US laws don't apply outside of US territory. Why should he care whether some document is classified in US, if he's not US citizen or in US territory?

I was talking about law in general.


Hater.

 

[Narmer]

Lol. That's it. You hit the nail on the head.

If you care to see beyond your narcissistic inclinations, what Wikileaks is doing has the potential to help the U.S. as well by allowing the U.S. government to rectify its conduct and play fair on the world stage. It can choose to ignore and suppress such information and its bearers and continue to throw its weight around like a bully, though at its own peril.

Shut up, please. The State Department already has a mechanism for releasing classified State Department cables to the public. We don't need a rapist publishing secret info.

Funny that people that talk about "fairness" and "equality" are those that are second class...

 

[foghorn67]

You're missing the whole point. The point is not about consequences for leaking this info. It's about the need for/the ethics of leaking confidential information. Not only would most people in the world agree, its basic common sense and the minimum that human decency demands of a person to expose wrongdoing or injustice even if there are consequences to be faced.

There's a good chance that Pvt. Manning will get in trouble or that Assange might be harmed in some way but anyone who does that is would be committing an injustice.

And who would be the judge of that? It is within the law to seek justice on anything stolen. Again, Pvt. Manning needs to face what the military deems as justice. When you enlist, you should know the consequences. It's not a popularity contest.

 

[sandorski]

this is a sad state of affairs. back in the USSR, this guy and his cohorts would disappear in a series of highly improbable accidents.

fixed

 

[Kommander_Kink]

People hate us out of envy/jealousy. They all want to rule the world but can't. It hurts to be second class to Americans, doesn't it? Doesn't it?

Spoken like an uneducated hillbilly, you have a head harder than a donkey's eh boy?

 

[Narmer]

Spoken like an uneducated hillbilly, you have a head harder than a donkey's eh boy?

Ask any foreigner why they hate us and they'll start talking about "injustices" or "crimes" or some other bullshit allegedly committed by American soldiers or businesses. It's all envy. Like the penis envy you have when you take a public shower in the dorms.

 

[sandorski]

Ask any foreigner why they hate us and they'll start talking about "injustices" or "crimes" or some other bullshit allegedly committed by American soldiers or businesses. It's all envy. Like the penis envy you have when you take a public shower in the dorms.

ridiculous

 

[BoomerD]

Do you wish the same for Daniel Ellsberg? You know the guy who played an important role in bringing an end to the Vietnam war and as a consequence prevented more AMERICAN lives from being lost?

DO I? No...DID I at the time? You betcha. I was in Vietnam when he released the Pentagon Papers...I would have been extremely happy to have had Mr. Ellsberg dropped into one of our forward areas...and would have gladly cut his fucking throat for him...or tied him to a tree and left him for the VC.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I support the leaks. I believe that we have way too much that is classified and really doesn't need to be. Also, the public needs to know what it's government is doing. Busy domestic spying programs anyone?

Regarding the information leaked so far, I fail to see any big "revelation" that has come from any of it. So Hillary told diplomats that if they get any information on their UN counterparts, they should. This surprises anybody? What about any of the other crap that's been released? Name one thing that's caused any actual harm to anybody...

Also, the issues at hand are not about Assange and/or WikiLeaks. The true issues are the lack of simple security measures to protect our (excessive amounts of) classified data, the actual person who stole the information, and the fact our secrets got out. Assange/WikiLeaks are not the sources of the problem. Leaking government information has been around for as long as governments have existed. We will never get rid of it. We can attempt to secure through measures that should have already been in place, but even then data will still get leaked. The person whole stole the data is the one where the blame lies with, not the one who made the information public. Manning is the one who is the one who committed crimes, not Assange.

Oh, and guess what? There is already a new site OpenLeaks that is going to be even harder to go after than WikiLeaks. Assange might be a dick and have an anti-American agenda, but getting rid of him won't do jack shit. It's just going to prove his points and that he was ultimately right if anything happens to him (if it has US support at least).

BTW, where was the outrage for leaking the domestic spying program? Everybody was pissed about it and said how wrong it is, but nobody was upset that information was leaked. Seems kind of hypocritical doesn't it?