Assange has been misleading on wanting to stop the war - Revenge on the US

Originally posted by Frogs
The US is hardly alone in doing "bad things" in the world. Any number of countries likely have similar things done diplomatically and militarily.

Think all of the things Russia has done in Chechnya, Georgia, etc has been in meeting with all the "rules of war" and no civilians have been harmed?

Think China has killed no innocents in Tibet?

I'll even use the ever popular ATS target - think Israel has done no wrong in Palestine ?

Of course they all have.

Think France, UK, Russia, China, etc don't engage in spying and diplomatic hanky panky.?

Of course they do - every country does.

So given that the US isn't the only country that ever does anything wrong, why focus only them?

I can only think of two reasons. One would be fear of what would happen if he leaked things about China, Russia or Israel. I feel pretty sure any of those countries would kill him. For all he says, he wants to stay alive. He is not afraid the US will kill him. The second, is a vendetta against the US for whatever reasons.

If he *really* wanted to "change the world" he would focus on all the major players and the wrong they commit. That might force everyone to change. To focus solely on the US represents a more personal mission. He doesn't want to change the world for the better - he just wants to hurt the US.

Say he is successful and the China or Russia becomes the top power in the world. Does he (or ATS) really think they will handle things better?

First of all because WL publishes leaked information which is sent to it. AMERICAN CITIZENS are leaking this information to WL. Now, why do you think that is?

Secondly. US has been wreaking havoc in the world since 9/11 and has to be stopped, so perhaps Assange is tackling information relative to US first.

I think US citizens are frightened by this release...it's one thing knowing these things go on, and another one having evidence in the public domain that it is going on.

They're frightened of the repercussions, which is why they want other countries to be exposed simultaneously.

Neither journalism nor whistleblowers work that way. There is much more to be feard from the US government itself, anyway.

America itself serves to highlight the problems of the other nations of the world, sadly, the American media is not very critical of its domestic government unless it is in regard to a left/right inflammatory issue. Saddam was a terrible person who murdered countless amounts of people, but that doesn't give us the justification for invading and taking over a country. If you want to start arguing about justification for Iraq is that Saddam killed people, well, there were plenty of better candidates who have done even worse than Saddam. If we are going to compare body counts, we should probably start invading China for all the murders they commit as well as their plethora of human rights violations.

In short, we all know that other countries have acted unjustly, we are reminded constantly by our mainstream media. What we don't get, however, is an objective opinion on America. It's always strawberries and giggles when it comes to America and our conduct, when that is a far cry from the truth. We are supposed to be critical of Iran, Libya, Venezuela, etc. because our government tells us to do so when examining their statements, but there has been no one to tell us about being critical of our own government, which is evidenced by the general state of # presently occupying it. Is it perfect? No. but nothing in this world is, and it is far better than any other alternative.

Originally posted by Frogs
The US is hardly alone in doing "bad things" in the world. Any number of countries likely have similar things done diplomatically and militarily.

Think all of the things Russia has done in Chechnya, Georgia, etc has been in meeting with all the "rules of war" and no civilians have been harmed?

Think China has killed no innocents in Tibet?

I'll even use the ever popular ATS target - think Israel has done no wrong in Palestine ?

Of course they all have.

Think France, UK, Russia, China, etc don't engage in spying and diplomatic hanky panky.?

Of course they do - every country does.

So given that the US isn't the only country that ever does anything wrong, why focus only them?

I can only think of two reasons. One would be fear of what would happen if he leaked things about China, Russia or Israel. I feel pretty sure any of those countries would kill him. For all he says, he wants to stay alive. He is not afraid the US will kill him. The second, is a vendetta against the US for whatever reasons.

If he *really* wanted to "change the world" he would focus on all the major players and the wrong they commit. That might force everyone to change. To focus solely on the US represents a more personal mission. He doesn't want to change the world for the better - he just wants to hurt the US.

Say he is successful and the China or Russia becomes the top power in the world. Does he (or ATS) really think they will handle things better?

Have you any evidence to suggest that Wikileaks has received leaked documents from citizens in other countries which he is deliberatel withholding? If not, your argument just doesn't makes sense.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Yes, and this is the point. The hypocrisy is exposed. The evil game gets messed up. This is a plus for the US as well.

I dont see this as being good for the US with the damage the release has caused, but thats me I guess. I personaly think there were better and more effective ways Assange could of accomplished his goal, but since it was revenge I guess he was able to do it afterall.

Originally posted by wcitizen
The number of people killed by Saddam is totally irrelevant to the issue of the war. The US/UK invaded Iraq because of a lie about WMD. They have absolutely no right to invade a country just because they don't like that country's politics. The Iraq war was illegal, plain and simple and nothing will make that oik, neither US/UK had any right to be there at all, and they are guilty of massive war crimes.

This is another statement I have debated others with. The wikileaks release on Iraq actually showed documentation their was still an active WMD program when the US invaded in 2003. Was it in large quantities? No, but we can't ignore the fact either that WMD's were located. I have seen people dismiss that report as being irrelevant, yet continue to support Assange when the info is bad for the US.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Look, a US citizen was so sickened by what he or she was seeing that they leaked these documents.
If someone from a different country does the same, there will be leaks about a different country. If not there won't.

Hs anyone read into Pvt. Manning and his actions? I personally do not think Manning released the documents because of a guilty conscious. Pvt. Manning had a rought stint in the military and was not well liked by others. When he was going through his training (intelligence analyst) 25 members of his class reported Manning to their chain of command because he was dsicussing the CIDS (rooms specifically used for classified information reviews - Info is classified) in youtube videos he was sending to his parents.

Pvt. Manning was reprimanded but kept his top secret clearance and eventually deployed to Iraq. The other issue, and Ihave not seen this confirmed anywhere, was in relation to Mr. Mannings sexual orientation. There were some individuals who knew manning and spoke about him going to a gay bar, but until that can be confirmed its rumor.

The reason I bring it up is Manning had ample reasons in his mind to screw the US Government over because he felt the military was causing problems for him.

Originally posted by wcitizen
In any case, it's not just the US which is getting hit here - many countries' politicians are being exposed.

I honestly find it difficult to understand how many Americans keep saying 'we're not the only ones'. If you get burgled, do you expect the police to say - well, we can't arrest the burglar because there are plenty of other people carrying out burglaries, so it wouldn't be fair to arrest just this one?

Somehwat of a valid point as I see where you are going with that. However, burglary is burglary, and if John Doe breaks in and gets caught and charged, so should the others when they commit the same crime and are charged.

Analogy above aside, what I am trying to get at is the reason peple hold the US accountible, is because of the lack of response from them. Exposing this type of information, at this level, would be deadly if it were coming from N. Korea or China. No one seems to be inrested in holding the tough ones accountible, always opting for the path of least resitance.

not sure if I am explaining this correctly - sorry been up for a little over 25 hours now.

Originally posted by wcitizen
The US got exposed. Simple as. US corruption has an massive influence on the world, it's a good place to start.

I agree, but doesnt it defeat the purpose when the the endeavor is based on revenge and not change?

Originally posted by wcitizen
And how are we going to get this secret government which pulls the strings to be 'accountable' unless the wall of secrecy is torn down bit by bit?

Participating in the system is one way. People in the US actually voting and talking to their representatives. To place part of your argument back on you, why arent people pulling down the walls of Russia, China or N. Korea down brick by brick?

Originally posted by wcitizen
I don't underestand why you call this revenge? In that case, isn't indicting a burglar revenge also?

I am not saying its revenge. The article I linked at the first post has Assange going on record saying the reason he did this was to get revenge on the US.

As far as the burglar comment goes, its not revenge since a law was broke. The person gets their day in court and we go from there. Assange is bypassing that step.

You asked about how we would get the secret government to be held accountible. Thats an easy question to answer:

Mr. Assange has all the secrets. Instead of using them, he dumped them on the world market. Assange was in a perfect position to cal the US out and really force the change he initialy said he wanted. Instead it created a backlash where Congress is talking about stricter espionage laws and tighter control over classified information.

How did Assanges actions create transparency? While he says he wants transparency, Mr. Assange was not completely transparent with people when he said he wanted to end the war.

I'm starting to think Assange isn't misleading on stopping the war, he's just overall misleading. Exactly which of the released cables are overly damning to any country? Sure they show misguided and horrible actions but nothing that would send anyone to war with one another. Nothing that is over all jaw dropping and uprising worthy. Of course I haven't seen everything and something could yet come out but that's my problem with it, nothing really big has yet.

When Wikileaks released the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs it did anger some people, including myself, but I noticed most people chalked it up to just being part of war.

Why did the U.S. gov. and it's alphabet agencies even allow the cables to come out? The first release of cables yea sure they could have slipped them out, but the next two? A "hacktivist" shut down wikileaks but none of the agencies did it? You think they don't know where Assange is at all times?
The CIA bought the first 10,000 editions of "Operation Dark Heart" by former intelligence officer Anthony Shaffer to keep things more under a wrap about what goes on in Afghanistan but did nothing but forewarn China when it came to the newest Wikileaks cable releases?
Something is just fishy about this.
I wanted this to be a reason for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq because there isn't any reason to still be there. If there where any "terrorist" left they mostly likely have went to other countries and set up by now.

About the insurance file, it gives off the impression of it being very damning because it's called "insurance" right? Then why not release that first? If you want to stop wars and agendas then why not just go for the gut?

There is something wrong with all of this. Does anyone else feel it?

Originally posted by wcitizen
I don't think it's possible to reply to this without looking at it in a much wider context. YOu are taking it personally, and that's part of the problem, imo. We HAVE to be able to deal with government corruption. There is a centuries old tradition of whistleblowers exposing government corruption, in order to stop them acting against the people. This is why there are laws to protect whistleblowers. There is also the issue of freedom of speech.

I am not taking anything personally and I hope you are not taking anything I have said personally. Im not here looking to get pissed or piss anyone off, but just wanted a conversation based on Assanges comments.. I agree we have to deal with Government corruption, but shouldnt it be by the American people and not a foriegner?

The whistelblower laws in this country most likely will not apply to Pvt. Manning since he did not follow established protocol for it (which was to report the info to Congress). Pvt. Manning does not share the same level of free speech a private citizen does since he is military and is subject to the UCMJ.

Also, a whistle blower turns over reports of illegal activity and wrong doing related specifically to the incident. Since manning had access to, but not a need to know, for the other files he took, its no longer whistleblowing. When documents were transmitted that had nothing to do with illegal activity is not whistle blowing either.

Originally posted by wcitizen
TPTB are all saying this is a threat to 'national security', but there is no proof of that at all. It is, for sure, a threat to their secret behind the scenes wheeling and dealing.

A National security threat, or clear and present danger, is used beyond politicians attempting to hide something by invoking those terms. When military strategies, diplomatic communications, release of classified information are comromised, its a national security threat. I dont think this is something we will see eye to eye on, but we can debate that in depth at another time if we want.

Originally posted by wcitizen
It is the people's DUTY to hold the Government accountable. They are denying us this possibility because they withold information, tell lies and censor the MSM. Freedom of information is ESSENTIAL for a democracy. This is an attempt to tear down their 'right to absolute secrecy' and reclaim the rights of the people to know and therefore to hold them accountable.

I couldnt agree more. However the release of documents is jut the tip of the iceberg that we just slammed into. I think people dont have an dequate understanding of how classified materially work. Check the link below this to see what I am referring to when I say the documents released are not the complete truth of what is going on.

Wiki - How classifications work

Originally posted by wcitizen
I think people forget it was not Assange who leaked the information, he just put it on the web.

Actually in an interview Mr. Lamo stated wiki provided Pvt. Manning with technical assistance. He was apprently provided with software that allowed manning to encrypt the classified information and send it out by email. The encryption program allowed the emails to evade the military computer security system for emails / electronic transmissions of info.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Of course, he knew there would be a backlash - that is what he has stated his job to be. He's the public face which gets the backlash so the others can get on with their work. But - the backlash should NOT circumvent, yet again, people's right to free speech.

Pvt. Manning, if you are referring to him, does not have freedom of speech while he is in the military. On the same token though, you cant walk into a crowded theatre and yell fire without getting in trouble and charged with a crime.

As far as him knowing there would be a backlash and stated hes doing his job, again is contradicted by his statement in the article where he wants revenge on the US Government.

Originally posted by wcitizen
The government response should reflect the law and the individual rights. Any decent government at this stage would be investigating Hillary Clinton for her actions. This government isn't doing that and the US people are so used to their Government not being held accountable for their corruption, they don't seem to really grasp what's going on here. I mean, why are you focusing on WL and not on addressing some of the illegal and unacceptable things done by your government?

Mr. Assanges response should also be based on law and rights, and not revenge. The peple here must participate in the process to effect change.

As far as hillary goes, in addition to all US Ambassadors and parts of their staff, have whats called Diplomatic Immunity, meaning they cannot be charged with a crime for breaking any laws in the country they are in. The only way that can happen is if President Obama waives the immunity so the foreign government can prosecute.

All countries that have embassies use this exact same system, so it not jsut a US thing.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Suspected of what in US?

Illegally accessing and possessing classified information. Illegally transfering that information to a source that made it available to our enemies while we are at war. Espionage because he went beyond the whistelblower statutes by releasing classified information that had nothing to do with any illegal activity. The other part of the espionage is wikileaks providing him with encryption software. If that is confirmed as accurate, then its espionage, regardless of intent. There is the possibility of treason as well.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I simply think the revenge statement is rubbish, sorry, no offence, but I really do.

No offense taken man.. I enjoy this type of back and forth because at some point, I get to larn something new and understand other points of views from the people on these forums.

As far as the revenge statement goes, I am not the one saying that was his intention. Mr. Assange himself stated he is doing this to get revenge on the US. His statement, and article where he said it, is the first post.

Thanks for the back and forth by the way. I am gonna step out for a little bit. Need to get some stuff done in real life. If this is still going when I come back I will jump back in.

Thanks!

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


I agree and yeah I think there is something else going on. All actions to date from wikileaks are running contrary to what their stated goal is.

I guess we could always go for the conspiracy theory and assume this is the false flag attack poeple talked about for the end of 2010 that will push the world into war. The world was volatile enough before the document dump...

reply to post by Xcathdra


Seriously, you post so many opiniated "facts" it is disturbing, disgusting and is EXACTLY what people all over the globe DISLIKE about 'Americans'.

I dont see this as being good for the US with the damage the release has caused,

Of course it is going to be damaging, but to who? "The US" is a BS answer. It is exactly how the bought and paid for media wants people to think. You want to know what is hurting the US? Foreign policy, domestic policy, financial policy...and guess what is being exposed by WL?

but shouldnt it be by the American people and not a foriegner?

GUESS how the hundreds of other nations across the globe felt when the 'all-powerful spreaders of democracy' showed up at their doorsteps.

I and pretty much most Americans have no issue being checked.

HOW can you say this? It's ridiculous...

Question then... If Assange wanted it stopped, why didnt he go through and find all of the information their was pertaining to criminal acts by the US and release that to the media?

Release it to the same media that is making him out to be the crook, yeah, I totally get where you're coming from(not).

Instead we now have damaged relations with these countries for not other reason than revenge.

Actually no. The relationship with these countries was already damaged, 'you' had a nice relationship with dictators, druglords, corrupt politicians which is now being shown. Revenge?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Illegally accessing and possessing classified information. Illegally transfering that information to a source that made it available to our enemies while we are at war.

When did the US declare they were at War?
Wiki did not access the information..It was given to them.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Question then... If Assange wanted it stopped, why didnt he go through and find all of the information their was pertaining to criminal acts by the US and release that to the media?

As days go by the process stories surounding Assange now has almost guaranteed that if any wrong doing is presented, the media will be to busy watching the arrest drama unfold in addition to interviewing members of Congress for their opinions.

I dont think the view on the Diplomatic Cables is too narrow, since the argument again can be applied that not all diplomatic cables related to what his goal was. Again he could have found cables that discuss or even corroborate the Iraq / Afghanistan abuse claims.

Instead we now have damaged relations with these countries for not other reason than revenge.

He could have challeneged the US on the world stage by presenting the info he had located.

Why didnt he do this?

edit on 4-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

We could discuss for ever why he didn't do this or do that. He is using a strategy which he believes to be the most effective. Don't ask me why he did nor didn't do something, I am not party to his thinking.

I understand you think he could have done it better - but I have to strongly disagree with you on that point.

Originally posted by backinblack
Wiki did not access the information..It was given to them.

Informant says WikiLeaks suspect had civilian help - MSNBC
WikiLeaks investigation expanded as White House faces new leaks

Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker who kept touches with the Private by sending instant messages this year, turned him in to the Army investigators to seek cooperation with them.

He said on Friday that WikiLeaks provided Manning with technical backing so that he could send these downloaded data through specially encrypted e-mails to avoid detection, adding that, though without direct evidence proving the connection between Manning and WikiLeaks, Manning was "manipulated" by the website.

There is no response either from the military or WikiLeaks's founder Julian Assange, an Australian national, to Lamo's words.

Since you are going to object to the content provided because its coming from someone you have dimissed in other threads, Ill give you a few more examples. The last examples has a letter from Assange to Mr. Lamo asking him to turn over chat logs Lamo had with Manning and the report to the Government. Since Assanges legal team is wanting those logs, the content contained is relevevant to the issue at hand, including the charge Wikileaks porovided encryption software to Manning to assist in getting information.

Wikileaks encryption use offers 'legal challenge'

First is this:
WikiLeaks Founder Unaware of Sources

WikiLeaks doesn’t know the identity of any sources who leak it information, Julian Assange, the website’s mercurial founder, told a gathering at the Frontline Club in London Tuesday night. But he conceded it might have some clues to work with.

The above article is from July 2010 - Why is the datre important you ask?

Because of this article:
Wikileaks Commissions Lawyers to Defend Alleged Army Source

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange wants a copy of the chat logs in which a U.S. intelligence analyst discussed providing classified materials to the whistle-blower site, according to an e-mail shown to Wired.com by the ex-hacker who turned the analyst in.

Assange, in June 2010, went on record stating he is setting up a legal team to defend Pvt. Manning.

How is it Assange, in June, says he is setting up a defense fund for manning, and in July, says he doesnt know who the source of the leak?

Was he lying in June, or was he lying in July?

If wikileaks was not involved in assiting Manning, why are they assisting with his defense? Wikiealks has not done this for any other source - Just Pvt. Manning.

Originally posted by backinblack
When did the US declare they were at War?

You are now 4 for 4 in asking this question, so I am going to give you the response I gave you from another thread. Fixiating on the declared war term is splitting hairs. The US can engage in combat operations without declaring war. In these 2 cases authorization was given by the US Congress, and the UN backed both actions.


H.J. Res. 64 - Authorized by the Congress of the United States of America on Sept 14th, 2001

UN Resolution1441

The above resolution was the last one the UN signed off on prior to the US invasion in 2003. The resolution does not authorize the use of force against Iraq per se. However it does reference all other resolutions that have been placed against Iraq since the end of the first gulf war. Sine Iraq was in breech of thsoe UN Resolutions the ability to use force to force Iraq to comply was already granted in previous resolutions by failure to comply.

Iraq- 116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 - Authorized by the Congress of the United States of America - Use of Force authorized against Iraq.

There was no UN Resolution dealing with Afghanistan when we did our thing, and as I point out below we do not need UN permission to defend ourselves. Why did the US go down this road you ask?

Lets look back a few years to 1999 - UN Resolution 1267
Yeah.. The UN works wonders...

What did the UN say when the US presented its case about Afghanistan:

GA/SM/274 AFG/151 8 October 2001

President of the General Assembly, Han Seung-Soo

The General Assembly of the United Nations, in its resolution 56/1 adopted immediately after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, condemned those acts of terrorism in the strongest terms and called for international cooperation to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the outrages. During the General Assembly debate on "Measures to eliminate international terrorism", held last week with an unprecedented number of Member States participating, we voiced our unequivocal view that international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security, as well as a crime against humanity.

The Security Council also adopted resolutions on this issue, which condemned the terrorist attacks as a threat to international peace and security, while reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. I understand that the current military action now being undertaken is predicated on these norms.

Article 51 of the UN charter was invoked, as well as article 5 of the NATO charter that allowed the US to deal with Afghanistan, as allowed and endorsed by the United Nations.

My personal opinion is screw the UN, because we saw how well the sanctions on Iraq worked for the better part of a decade.People seem to confuse self defense with mother may I and command by comittee. The entity that is repsonible for the safety and security of the United States is the duly elected Government put in place by US citizens. The notion we have to go to the UN and ask permission when we were attacked is absurd, and a very good example of why the UN is about worthless.

Is this enough information for you, or do I need to provide more??

Also, wikileaks released classified information that proved there was a WMD program still active up to and after the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq. The argument from the left is there were no WMDs and it was a lie. Wikileaks has proved this wrong, which reinforced the argument and reason for action against Iraq.

Or are we ignoring those wikileak documents that actually support the actions of the US?

Mr. Assange should have picked his topics more carefully, eleasing the documents that show illegal behavior by the US. Instead, he flooded the market as a revenge tactic, blowing his own argument out of the water, damaging his credibility for lying about the true intentions of the leaks, which in his words was done in revenge agains the US.

Mr. Assange was so damn arrogant that he failed to understand the impact of what he was doing. Not only did he jeopradize the National security of the US and our Allies, it gave targets to terrorists in the process. Instead of stopping the wars, he has provided resolve to the Taliban and Al Queida, jeopradized the lives of not only American troops, but Austrailian as well.

...and for what?

Revenge

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Out of curiosity does this change anyones mind who were supporting Mr. Assange for his stated goal (end war)?

I meditated on this in the last few days and I believe, yes, he stopped a war. Even if we're not counting all the predictions which said WW3 starts in the end of November, right when WikiLeaks released the documents, the South-North Korea conflict also reached it's top peak right on the day when the documents was released. That cooled down the U.S. a bit as suddenly they came into the crosshair.

So, yes, I believe this is stopped a war for sure. If the NWO is really that number maniac, this is crossed their plans because right now everyone is watching all their acts since the end of November and they can't act freely at all as they desires. And not just the U.S. is in the crosshair of the public, but every major warmonger nation.

You may call it as revenge, justice, whatever you want. But that's sure, right now all the warmonger nations backed on every possible front as they must defend themselves against these documents, which made them very vulnerable. It's good, because these idiots are not going to make another war in 2010.

Originally posted by Zamini
Seriously, you post so many opiniated "facts" it is disturbing, disgusting and is EXACTLY what people all over the globe DISLIKE about 'Americans'.

Which Facts dont you like? A fact is different from an opinion. A fact comes from reliable sources where info can be verified in different ways. Just because you disagree with Facts on Assange, does not mak them opinionated in order to make it easier to dismiss them.

Originally posted by Zamini
Of course it is going to be damaging, but to who? "The US" is a BS answer. It is exactly how the bought and paid for media wants people to think. You want to know what is hurting the US? Foreign policy, domestic policy, financial policy...and guess what is being exposed by WL?

So when the media reports on information released by wikileaks that puts the US in a bad light. When the media reports information that alls wikileaks into quetion, they are bought and paid for. Typical and not surprising.

You dont get it both ways, so please pick an argument that best fits your opinion and get back to us on that one.

Originally posted by Zamini
GUESS how the hundreds of other nations across the globe felt when the 'all-powerful spreaders of democracy' showed up at their doorsteps.

As far as countries we have dealt with in the manner you are implying, provide a list of those countries please. I dont remeber people bitching about WWI, WWII, Gulf War, Korean war, etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Zamini
HOW can you say this?

In the same manner you can make a statement about how other countries felt when the "all-powerful spreaders of democracy" showed up.

Originally posted by Zamini
Its rediculous

Just as much as your statement and argument.

Originally posted by Zamini
Release it to the same media that is making him out to be the crook, yeah, I totally get where you're coming from(not).

Again, people champion the media when they report the leaks and info, and again the media is making the guy out to be a crook. Maybe its because he is one.

Oh, again, figure out which version of media you want to use. This way it makes your stance look consistent and not biased towards the media. Unless you are going for that love the media when they report bad US, hate the media when they call Assange and wikileaks out. If you ever fiogure it out, get back to us.

Originally posted by Zamini
Actually no. The relationship with these countries was already damaged, 'you' had a nice relationship with dictators, druglords, corrupt politicians which is now being shown. Revenge?

Actually all nations do. Since Assange decided to play crook and release, the damage is done. What color is the sky in your world? Do you think Assange has ALL of the classified information? Do you think the documents being released contain the entire story? If your answer is yes, then you need to learn how intelligence works, and how agency overlap occurs.

With differing agency reports, all holding information to paint the over all picture, are combined, it gives a clear picture. When only partial release is done, which is what Assange has done, only the partial truth is present, leaving out other clarifying documents that place the intelligence in proper context.

and as I said before, Assange is not on a quest for moral accountibility. He is doing this as revenge for his opinions of the US Government and people within.

People, entites, countries that want to take the Us Government to task, thats fine. I would not throw stones in your glass house though. Just as Assange maintains the US has acted illegally, so has Mr. Assange. Assange wants to hold the US accountible, yet refuses to account for his actions with the Swedish incident. Instead of making a stand and letting the facts speak for themselves in Sweden, he comes up with some BS story about beinmg placed in solitary and not allowed access to a lawyer.

He is using the exact same argument he accuses other countries of. The only reason people suppoort Assange is because they want to feel important by being able to have access to information they are not going to understand. Why do I say this? because they wont have the entire picture.

Ironic really that people would support Assange and his actions, while condemning others. Thats the truely hypocritical part - Hold the US responsible for illegal actions, then wine when Assange is held to the same standard.

The release of all these documents does not make Manning a whistleblower. The posting of this info does not make Assange a whisteblower.

Mannings actions fall under treason, and Assanges actions fall under espionage.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Mannings actions fall under treason, and Assanges actions fall under espionage.

Assange's actions falls under journalism. Espionage would be if he would work for a foreign agency or would sale all these information for a huge ammount of money. This is pure journalism as he is releasing all these info to the public.

When the U.S. journalists are making similar things with other countries, where they're getting the info from insiders, it's also called as journalism. So please forget the double standards.

reply to post by wcitizen


Disagreement is fine. I just find it offbase when a person states the reason for actions is to stop a war, while at the same time the actions suggest anything but. To me, what Assange has done, is to tell the world that he has information that documents illegal actions taken by the US.

He goes through ll the trouble and hoopla, telling the world anything and everything - except the information he says he has that shows illegal behavior.

Release it, or dont release it. Holding onto it makes about as much sense as placing a screen door on in the access hatch to a submarine.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
Assange's actions falls under journalism. Espionage would be if he would work for a foreign agency or would sale all these information for a huge ammount of money. This is pure journalism as he is releasing all these info to the public.

You dont have to work for a countries intelligence service to be charged with espionage. Espionage - Spying, retreiving classified information and providing it to people / countries. When wiki provided encryption software to Pvt. Manning, allowing manning to encrypt the information in such a manner he could email it without it setting off flags, is not media, nor whistle blowing.

Its espionage. Possession fo the documents is illegal, and on the off chance people didnt notice, not all media outlets ran the information. Media has released classified information, but only revoilving around one story. Assange is releasing information that does not show illegal behavior. He is releasing top secrete cables thathave nothing to do with the wars.

Thats not journalism - To use Mr. Assanges own words - Its revenge on the US.

Originally posted by Sentinel412
When the U.S. journalists are making similar things with other countries, where they're getting the info from insiders, it's also called as journalism. So please forget the double standards

Well its not a double standard. The part of that example you are not taking into account is when people who spy for the United States get caught, the country they were caught in uses their legal system to take care of the leak, and most times without the bother of due process or a trial. In addition the media in those countries are generally clamped down on and are threatened about running the info, which could result in imprisonment or death with the station / radio / media license to operate yanked.

If you would look past the blind support Assange is getting, and look at other countries and the manner they dealt with their national security issues, you would see the fault in the argument.

Also, since people like to throw the term media outlet / journalist around food for thought.

A Journalist looks for the story, gathers the sources and evidence and present the information in a manner that supports the article. When a journalist makes himself part of that story intentionally, its no longer journalism, because the story is now compromised. Journalists report the facts, not their opinions as Mr. Assange has done.

Mr. Assange is not a journalist.

reply to post by Xcathdra


By your interpretation of the law, there should be thousands of reporters and editors in jail right now..
I know here in Australia the papers and TV do articles on "leaked" confidential Government files all the time..

And from one of your earlier posts..
Of course Julian would say he didn't know who leaked the information..
He's protecting his source like any good journolist...

Your whole case is flimsy speculation..
You even say Julian has committed crimes in the US when I have heard no such thing..
I did hear they may change the laws to make it a crime but I don't see that working in court..

reply to post by backinblack


No.. your missing my point by making it too broad. We have news leaking info all the time (classified etc). The argument I am making is this is not just one report, or one page of a report, as 99% of the journalists have. They will get a tip, info, and report on it, the one incident.

Mr. Assange is not doing this. He is not releasing just evidence of what he perceives as illegal behavior. He is essentially throwing the doors open on part of the pentagon and telling everyone there is illegal behavior documented and to read about it.

However, its hard to read about the illegal activity when the other 500k documents are in the way.

That is what my argument is based on. Media, Whisteblowers, they all have information that is specfic and known that they dont agree with. There is no possible way for all of the documents released to document evidence of illegal behavior. The moment information is released with no illegal evidence, its no longer journalism, or whistelelowing - but illegally possesing and sitributing classified information.

When the stated goal of Assange goes from "trying to stop wars" to "I am doing this as revenge on the US, its no longer journalism or whistleblowing.

To be technical he is attacking the National Security of the US be releasing information thathas nothing to do with any cause. His most recent stblackmail attempt is to tell the world if he is arrested, he is going to release his "insurance file".

Again a question - If the info in the insurance file is so damning, why is it still hidden and encrypted? Again the actions run contrary to the words.

Under the rules of war, Assange is running dangerously close to placing himself in the military targeting reticle based on his actions going from whistelblower to blackmailer.

I love how you keep coming back to the crime argument. He has comitted a crime, and because they are felonies in this country, the statute of limitations is decades, which means 10 years from now we can file charges against assange for his behavior today.

When the charges are filed, you will be the first person I shoot a msg to.