The Wikileaks Monster

[ditchdj]

I mockingly like to call Julian Assange this. That's because I don't understand is so evil about this guy. First of all, he's NOT the one "leaking" all these classified documents about our government and corrupt corporations. All he's doing is putting them online for everyone to see. Now it seems like everyone's out to get him in that old classic case of "Kill the Messenger".

Now Bill O'Reilly and Mike Huckabee say that he should brought up and put to death for "treason". WTF!

He's not even a freakin' citizen!

Plus..........if the government does something corrupt or lies and you expose it, then that makes you a candidate for treason and the death penalty????

And now the US is trying to see if they can charge hin with something so they can extradite him? So I guess if one of us posts something unfavorable about the Chinese government then China can trump up a charge on you and then they can extradite you there???? If THAT happened we'd all be up in arms.

BTW Anyone notice that the government's not denying the documents are they?

BTW The Wikileaks Monster is getting ready to expose some more monkey business that the banks are up to.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news...eaks-#comments

[BlaqueKatt]

Now Bill O'Reilly and Mike Huckabee say that he should brought up and put to death for "treason". WTF!

He's not even a freakin' citizen!

treason as defined by the US constitution is:the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

so if he released any sort of military documents-he would be guilty, I don't know as I never read any of it.

[ditchdj]

so if he released any sort of military documents-he would be guilty, I don't know as I never read any of it.

That's the thing: He did NOT release them!

He merely recived them from someone that released them and he put them online. This is a classic case of "Kill the Messenger".

If the government can't even keep its barn doors closed that's not Assange's problem!

Also..........if we didnt have the kind of lying and corruption that goes on in our government, there wouldn't be any documents to post and release.

[Boozy]

treason as defined by the US constitution is:the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

so if he released any sort of military documents-he would be guilty, I don't know as I never read any of it.

Except the US can't arbitrarily apply its own laws to citizens of other countries unless the crime occurred on US soil.

That's a bit tricky to prove, here.

[ditchdj]

I like what Ron Paul said about it......

"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," Paul said. "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it."

"This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?" he added.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...05-503544.html

[DrFaroohk]

Yeah I never got what's so evil about him either. If everyone hates him so much, there's a really EASY way to get rid of wikileaks - STOP LEAKING SHIT! If people cleaned up their act there'd be no problems.

[crashhelmet]

There's a documentary on YouTube about the rise of Wikileaks. In it, he claims he's fighting censorship. Why not go after China and their desire to censor everything?

He seems to have a fixation on targeting the American Government. He isn't releasing anything about anyone else, and if he is, it's very little. In that documentary, they mention and point out that the people that helped him build it all up have left him because of his blind ambitions. They've formed their own company/site/whatever to get back to what Wikileaks started as.

How or why is he a monster? How or why can it be treacherous to the United States of America? There is already a storm brewing of Anti-American Vitriol, whether it be from the Muslim nations or terrorist factions. What happens when one of his leaks is responsible for another attack? What happens when one of his leaks is responsible for the countless deaths of innocent people?

[Andara Bledin]

Wikileaks (which Assange inherited, not started by him), has released stuff on China.

Also, check out what has happened recently in Tunisia; some of the recent cables were about the despotic "presidency" over there.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

While there are a few (*very* few) situations where things ought to be kept quiet, in general, if you don't want the world to know about the vile things you do, DON'T DO VILE THINGS.

The idea that, whatever you do, nobody will ever know, is by nature corruptive.

[Hyena Dandy]

When it comes to Wikileaks, I don't see it in black and white. I think there are some things that should be released. Sometimes US, sometimes other countries. Whatever. At the same time, there are somet hings the government has a reason to keep quiet. Because I think sometimes the government has to do unpleasant things.]

Now I'm not just saying 'unpleasant' when I mean torture or such. I mean making a deal like "You take one of our prisoners, or else you can't meet with our diplomat guy."

There are some things which are unpleasant, but not, I think morally reprehensible. That people don't need to hear about.

But, there are other things which should be released. The problem with wikileaks, I think, is that there's really no attempt to distinguish between 'unpleasant but acceptable' and 'the people need to know this'.

That said, I really don't think we can try Assange for treason. For one, he's Australian. For two, he's not the guy leaking all these things. Other people are leaking it. He's just putting it up.

I don't think he's fighting 'censorship', as far I'm concerned censorship and classified information are completely different things.

[Teysa]

But, HYHYBT, that would make sense and we all know we can't have that.

As for the whole treason thing, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems it would be hard to commit treason against a country you're not even a citizen of.

[Mytical]

Here is the way I look at it. I could care less about leaking government dirty laundry, in fact I applaud it. Only when the information endangers lives, do I say "Whoa there." By all means expose corruption, etc, but if information puts people's lives at risk..don't expose that information. Seems a reasonable request.

I've not seen all of the documents released, etc. If there is nothing saying "The military is going to strike here, here, and here at this time" or "This person is a spy." etc..then it's all good. If there is, then yeah, I think the site should be shut down, and the people who put the info up should get in trouble. Treason though? Not so sure about that either way.

[Andara Bledin]

I haven't read them or done any particular research, but from what I've read in news articles, the most recent releases have been diplomatic cables - information from diplomats abroad sent back home, and between one another.

There is a lot of dirty laundry about how different groups really feel about others, and that's part of what's got everybody in such a tizzy. I know that there are a lot more cables that they have that haven't been released, and some of those are being held as a poison pill option, should someone go after Assange or Wikileaks in a more permanent manner than they have so far.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Just because he wasn't the one to originally steal information doesn't make him innocent of any crimes. He's purposely gathering classified information and giving it away. This is espionage. And he should get what any other person committing espionage should get: a bullet between the eyes.

[draco664]

treason as defined by the US constitution is:the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

so if he released any sort of military documents-he would be guilty, I don't know as I never read any of it.

Given how much effort has gone into trying to find *something* to charge him with, and the fact that the only legal moves against him are sexual misconduct related, you might be oversimplifying there. Remember, he *published* the documents, he didn't *release* them.

For a while there, lawmakers were trying to contort the law in an effort to find something to charge him with, even going so far as to draft a whole new law. It broke down when they found they couldn't make what Assange did illegal, without making investigative journalism also illegal.

That's the thing: He did NOT release them!

He merely recived them from someone that released them and he put them online. This is a classic case of "Kill the Messenger".

It goes further than that.

On one hand, you have the fellow that is accused of leaking them.
- A US soldier (an intelligence analyst)
- who has passed psych screening and a background check
- who, despite his demotion and problems, was still allowed access to a classified network
- who broke an oath to release the info.

On the other hand, you have
- the operator of a website that has been running for years, publishing leaked documents.

Which of these people does the US gov go after?

Hell, it's been reported by Manning's lawyers that he's been offered a light plea deal to testify against Assange. That's like letting a mass-murderer out on probation in return for his testimony against the getaway driver. It's fucking retarded.

There's a documentary on YouTube about the rise of Wikileaks. In it, he claims he's fighting censorship. Why not go after China and their desire to censor everything?

He seems to have a fixation on targeting the American Government. He isn't releasing anything about anyone else, and if he is, it's very little.

You do realise that he only releases what he is given, don't you? He's not a hacker, going out there hunting down information. He is a passive receiver, releasing what people give him.

If he's releasing mostly western secrets, it's probably because he's receiving western secrets. Given the fact that Russia, China, Iran etc don't really go all in for the whole 'due process' thing, (opting for Greenday's preferred solution to the problem) is it any real surprised that western secrets are leaked more often?

In that documentary, they mention and point out that the people that helped him build it all up have left him because of his blind ambitions. They've formed their own company/site/whatever to get back to what Wikileaks started as.

How or why is he a monster? How or why can it be treacherous to the United States of America? There is already a storm brewing of Anti-American Vitriol, whether it be from the Muslim nations or terrorist factions.

Did you not see the video of the infamous 'Baghdad Airstrike'? US forces opened fire on a group of people after mistaking camera equipment for weapons. They then shot up a vehicle attempting to help the wounded. They then attacked a building the survivors ran to.

With that video released on WL, plus the half-arsed 'informal' investigation into the incident afterwards, a lot of powerful people were under a lot of pressure, and there was a great deal of embarrassment all round.

And when powerful people get embarrassed, they tend to spread their displeasure around with a big shovel. And describing the person who released the footage as a traitor neatly deflects public opinion away from them.

What happens when one of his leaks is responsible for another attack? What happens when one of his leaks is responsible for the countless deaths of innocent people?

It has, according to Assange. Also, it has not, according to Assange.

In one interview he claims "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak" and then in an article he wrote claims "WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed."

The guy is a paranoid nutter who can't keep his dick in his pants, but he's not a spy, and he's not a traitor.