It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teachings of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion or civic and social institutions rather than an all-powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves, namely their great protector – the state.
We should view the Wikileaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.
One of the women that is accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called "sex by surprise" or "unexpected sex."
One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have "ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups," according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.
Originally posted by boondock-saint
to be quite honest here,
I think Ron Paul doesn't know
everything he needs to know
before he defends wikileaks.
If Ron Paul finds out that
wikileaks funding is coming
laundered through several
George Soros foundations,
then he needs to stop
supporting wikileaks
or else he tarnishes his
reputation by associating and
supporting Soros funded propaganda.
Paul needs to do his homework
before going any further.
We should view the Wikileaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets we should focus on our delusional foreign policy.
Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Where is he supporting WL?
Originally posted by robwerden
Or he can continue to defend Freedom of the press and the first amendment regardless of how people feel about it. To be a true defender of the constitution you must defend everyone's right to speech even if you disagree with it.
Originally posted by boondock-saint
to be quite honest here,
I think Ron Paul doesn't know
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Apparently Paul isn't privy to the kind of information you are. Maybe you should warn him?
Originally posted by boondock-saint
Originally posted by robwerden
Or he can continue to defend Freedom of the press and the first amendment regardless of how people feel about it. To be a true defender of the constitution you must defend everyone's right to speech even if you disagree with it.
there is a difference between freedom of speech
and being paid by a billionaire to air dirty laundry
for an agenda.
1 is not illegal, the other is
Originally posted by robwerden
Originally posted by boondock-saint
Originally posted by robwerden
Or he can continue to defend Freedom of the press and the first amendment regardless of how people feel about it. To be a true defender of the constitution you must defend everyone's right to speech even if you disagree with it.
there is a difference between freedom of speech
and being paid by a billionaire to air dirty laundry
for an agenda.
1 is not illegal, the other is
There is no difference. If someone is a publisher, they have 1st amendment protection. If someone is a blogger, they also have first amendment protection. The hate spew coming from all ends of the media and internet spectrum are protected under freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
It does not matter if the top secret documents were dumped to the NY Times, Wikileaks or to me personally and then published in a news paper, blog or torrent file, it is all protected speech and press.
The criminal act is the person who stole the documents. Once the documents are handed to any publisher, the publisher not only has the right to publish them, but also has a patriotic duty to make the public aware of the content if it in it self reveals illegal actions with in the documents.
I think Ron Paul doesn't know everything he needs to know before he defends wikileaks.
Originally posted by robwerden
If the United States want's to prosecute him, then they have to have a law that he violated, and if they are using laws of the United States to arrest him, then he is entitled to protection under the constitution.