Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Arrested in London

reply to post by masqua


In general secrecy is not good for growth, yet we are talking about diplomacy, we are talking about saving lives in making deals that may not make sense to conventional wisdom for all. We are not discussing politicians stealing tax payers money to pay for hookers or what have you, and covering it up... Its pretty black and white no broad strokes here it what is right and wrong and with wiki leaks actions towards diplomatic aspects of our country with others. Quite frankly we do not need to know the aspects of how we win over relationships that may threaten our lives each and everyday. We do not need to read nor does the world need to see the art in eloquence of intelligence it takes people to maintain stability in this world. Yet I totally understand the context of opinion yet at the same time I don't see anything good when comes to secrecy with wiki leaks and citizens of the WORLD, if anything their will be even more secrecy, due to mistrust.

reply to post by thenewboy


If you had paid the slightest heed to the recent history of Wikileaks, Julian Assanges press conferences since the site came to real notoriety , then you would know that he is not the agent of destruction you claim he is.
He has catagoricaly requested that a US representative, come to the Wikileaks headquaters and go through the planned releases, to see if there is anything more that could be done to remove names, and other information which could lead to the deaths of either american operatives, spies, military units and so on. That reasonable request was denied, and in all fairness thats not his fault. Nor is it a good reason not to release the files to the public. The US government had ample oppertunity to play ball , and refused, and then had the audacity to complain afterwards. What a bunch of morons, honestly , all the wit you would expect from your average cabbage.
Assange gave the US plenty of time, and having been rebuffed, decided to release the files anyway. The fact that they do not contain more than they do that could damage the war effort , and diplomacy futher, is due to the care and thoughtfullness with which these documents have been studied , as I can assure you , released in thier utterly raw format , they would have been far worse than they actualy are.
Your low opinion of the gentleman concerned is of course your own afair, but I demand you get your facts straight even if it doesnt change your mind.

Has Julian Assange just a liberal who has gone a little to too far?
Julian Assange is not the first liberal who has partnered with terrorists, with a mutual interest to harm America. Terrorists want every infidel dead while socialists want to over throw society to become socialists.
Would liberals like Clinton and Obama call out WikiLeaks if republicans were in power, or do our liberals suddenly recognize that siding with terrorists is bad?
We have seen similar things with liberals wanting terrorists to be given rights of US citizens, so that Bush and Cheney would be put on trial, despite the harm to America.
Suddenly, liberals are condemning WikiLeaks for doing the same thing as liberals did, when Bush was in the WH, huh? Are liberals only patriotic when they are in power?
What about liberals complaining about water boarding terrorists, plenty of liberals wanted terrorists treated like US citizens, to gain political power, to embarrass Bush and Cheney for being heavy handed with terrorists.

reply to post by thenewboy


Well, I gotta say your posts have become alot less belligerent, which is odd but a welcome change. I am on the fence about wikileaks like alot of others are, but I believe the intention of the site is not to pick and choose, but to be a mindless outlet with no agenda. As others have said, up to this point, nothing really earth shattering has been leaked. It's no surprise that our governments are made up of a bunch of two faced slimeballs. They lie professionally, that's not news. The leak about the vital interests, aren't even up to date, and were also not news. Anybody who wanted to get that info could have gotten it with a little research. Those types of targets are not how the terrorists operate, they want the civilians to be terrorized. Would it terrorize America if a mine in South America got suicide bombed? We use dynamite on mines all the time, it's not gonna do much to the minerals therein.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Just because we do not live in a reality that can be happy and war-free, etc, does not mean we do not strive for it!!!!

Oh boy. Strive away. Just don't do it in a stupid and harmful manner.

What the courageous Julian had done was ONLY to expose what's being going on behind the scenes

Sure, a voyeur in you is having a field day. That it may have well compromised various informants working for the US is non-consequential for you.

Just because you think one cannot marry a supermodel or arrive in a choco limo, does not and needs not be the belief of 6 billion of rational adults from mankind. You may fail, but others, with encouragement and support to do the right thing, may just stun you into disbelief with 'reality'!

That's inspirational! So you are saying there is still a chance... for a supermodel in a choco limo... You made my day.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
He has catagoricaly requested that a US representative, come to the Wikileaks headquaters and go through the planned releases, to see if there is anything more that could be done to remove names, and other information which could lead to the deaths of either american operatives, spies, military units and so on.

I see. How nice. Let's say a burglar steals a bunch of stuff from your house, that doesn't belong to him at all. Then, he magnanimously offers for you to come over and collect things of sentimental value, while still keeping the hoard.

he cant be done for treason right? because hes australian? plus hes here in england...what laws has he broke in regards to wikileaks and releasing secret info? i think all this extra stuff about him raping women is fabricated to try and get him behind bars because they know they cant do it any other way.

ultimately...if the government dont like all this stuff about them being leaked...maybe they should stop doing dodgy stuff

reply to post by buddhasystem


The comparison is utterly invalid, since neither Assange nor Wikileaks are responsible for the removal of this data that they share from its original location, nor its arrival at their door. They do not have thousands of ninja data theives running through the corridoors of the Whitehouse, or Number Ten Downing Street.
They are merely a place where people who believe that the world has a right to know what they know, can make that happen. There is nothing else to it . Might be handling stolen goods, but sure as hell not taking them himself, and nor is his company . Again, people must be accurate when throwing accusations around, because just shotgunning the place with badly researched arguments makes the whole "Julian Assange is the Devil, and Wikileaks a province of Hell" argument look EVEN weaker than it did before, and frankly debate is more fun when theres real competition.

What I find scarier than the secrets himself is that he's only 39, yet he looks like he's 65.
That's what major stress can do to you folks.

Originally posted by jmlima
(from yet another thread)

Swedes always liked to play all sides of the fence, in order to chicken out of trouble, and the UK is a US-run proxy state.

Are you sure about that?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by TrueBrit
He has catagoricaly requested that a US representative, come to the Wikileaks headquaters and go through the planned releases, to see if there is anything more that could be done to remove names, and other information which could lead to the deaths of either american operatives, spies, military units and so on.

I see. How nice. Let's say a burglar steals a bunch of stuff from your house, that doesn't belong to him at all. Then, he magnanimously offers for you to come over and collect things of sentimental value, while still keeping the hoard.

WL didn't steal anything. If nothing else, they've returned what rightfully belongs to the people.

reply to post by andy1033


you joking? I hope you are.

Originally posted by Cablespider

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by TrueBrit
He has catagoricaly requested that a US representative, come to the Wikileaks headquaters and go through the planned releases, to see if there is anything more that could be done to remove names, and other information which could lead to the deaths of either american operatives, spies, military units and so on.

I see. How nice. Let's say a burglar steals a bunch of stuff from your house, that doesn't belong to him at all. Then, he magnanimously offers for you to come over and collect things of sentimental value, while still keeping the hoard.

WL didn't steal anything. If nothing else, they've returned what rightfully belongs to the people.

edit on 7-12-2010 by Cablespider because: (no reason given)

Thats right manning stole the documents and gave them to wikileaks so we are clear on that now..

reply to post by researchit


Well done researchit.

Did you translate all this on your own?

If you did, that's really good of you. Thanks.

Even if not, that's a lot of good information.

Originally posted by thenewboy
The future of what? None sense journalism only wanting to make money off of free information.. You did hear they were selling the information right.

Selling the info? Since when? Proof please or retract this.

Originally posted by Cablespider

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by TrueBrit
He has catagoricaly requested that a US representative, come to the Wikileaks headquaters and go through the planned releases, to see if there is anything more that could be done to remove names, and other information which could lead to the deaths of either american operatives, spies, military units and so on.

I see. How nice. Let's say a burglar steals a bunch of stuff from your house, that doesn't belong to him at all. Then, he magnanimously offers for you to come over and collect things of sentimental value, while still keeping the hoard.

WL didn't steal anything. If nothing else, they've returned what rightfully belongs to the people.

edit on 7-12-2010 by Cablespider because: (no reason given)

EXACTLY my thoughts... Since when how the PUBLIC SERVANTS act is something that belongs only to them? He just did what most of us should have done. Gave the truth to people.
To be honest I dont know if this man actually is who he shows himself to be, or this is just a smart trick from the guyz up high to drive us in a place they want us to be.
Since most of us wont believe anything our goverments say the only way to do it is with reverse psychology. Make the person who will say their things look like their enemy as well...

Don't trust anyone 100% but I keep my ears and eyes open

reply to post by thenewboy


Those are your words, not mine. The People paid for that information, not the government. The government was hired to acquire it. Job well done. Now The People expect a return on their investment. They NEED to know if it was money well spent.

WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder
Selling secrets 'lucrative,' but 'usually cloaked in some kind of public benef

Here you go wikileaks selling the information money hounds goons thatyou people follow money hounds..

www.wnd.com...

This is all theatre. A sideshow. The organisation is not just one man and all this just distracts from the issue at hand.

There are important but separate issues here. That need to be discussed separately by rational people.

1. The Leaks: The 'leak' occurred when whomever downloaded the stuff gave it to wiki-leaks. It seems likely this was manning and he broke the law by doing so, criminal act. He will be tried and convicted in accordance with whatever secrecy act applies and not see daylight till he is very old. Thats the way it is. He should have known that. Rightly so.

2. Journalistic Response: Once provided with the data Wiki-leaks forged relationships with other journalistic organisations to break the story. Thats it. No espionage. No terrorism. Journalism.

You need the ability to keep genuine secrets secret. You need laws to punish those who transgress. But you also need a free press so that when somebody on the inside of an organisation or government sees something so egregious he feels its worth the punishment to expose it to the public (the rare moral courage component), there is an avenue. If its 'in the public interest'. The public interest needs to be considered carefully. Its not necessarily the same as 'interesting to the public'. Personally I think they have got this wrong in this case.

However, if that feedback loop does not exist or has withered due to corporate influence you have a fascist state (and no, internal redress procedures are no substitute).

Unfortunately, in this case the leaker appears to have been extremely silly. None of that leaked thus far is really worth 50 years in jail, or that surprising to the educated observer. The wikileaks organisation also appears imprudent in its determination to leak everything regardless of real import to the public interest.

It would be ironic and sad if well intentioned but imprudent radical journalism put the final 9mm into the temple of the free press in the west.

The arrest of the front man of the organisation is ludicrous and more instructive than any leak. The signs are ominous.

The correct response would have been - prosecute the leaker to the full extent of law, tighten security holes, protest at irresponsible journalism. That would gain the country respect. The response screams of insecurity and hysteria.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by andy1033

 

you joking? I hope you are.

Uk gov and police monitor me 24/7 since 1992, with these techs, i do not have any privacy or private life.

100% fact the police in uk have these techs and use them.