More WikileaksFollow

On the other hand, if he's guilty then it'll achieve plenty in bringing justice to a rapist.

Only if you assume there must be a connection between it all.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 5:14pm by Jophiel

No, the court decides that. I just find it amusing that people are operating under some assumption that this esteemed hero can't possibly be guilty and it just has to be a set-up.

Sometimes people are just do shitty, and illegal, things.

Awesome. So we agree!

Me too! I heard a scary rumor and really spooky innuendo that the GOVERNMENT set him up! OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG IT WAS ON THE WEBBERNETS AND MY BFF JILL SAID IT WAS TRUE!!!!

Kinda hard to be snippy if you're gonna do this, man. You're ruining my whole gig, I hope you realise that.

So uh, yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that uh, maybe um you know, uh, maybe it was set in motion due to leaks prior to August? And/or it could be that there is evidence to suggest he is guilty but the only reason the case is again being prosecuted after being dropped is his continuing aggravation of the US government. I do mean maybe, incidentally, it's not a rhetorical trick. The surrounding facts are highly suspicious, but that doesn't mean he's innocent; who knows, maybe the CIA struck gold.

How exactly is Mr. Assange any more guilty than the editor of, say, the Guardian? Furthermore, if the leaks we've seen so far can be seen as breaching national security then surely so do criticisms that make the President appear weak, encouraging other countries to try it on? What principle is it that distinguishes the two types of speech?

5000 word minimum, hand it in before Friday if you please.

You know who else has called for his arrest? Yeah Mahmoud Ahmedinijad. It would seem your in good company.

Also in breaking news....

Nigeria has just filed charges against DIck Cheney in relation to events that occurred whilst he was CE of Halliburton. I would assume that his extradition to face the charges will be unimpeded by the US authorities.

I'm not familiar with "The Guardian", but it doesn't matter because if it's the same then it's the same. It doesn't matter. Since I'm not hearing anything about "The Guardian", I think it's safe to say that there is some differences. I will go out on a limb here(because I actually have no idea) and say that the difference is talking about leaked information is different from leaking the information.

I don't even know what criticism you're talking about, so you will have to clarify.

*Shrug*

So if Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il and the wraith of Hitler all get together and say we should find a cure for cancer, I should think that curing cancer must be bad and be against it?

Interesting.

Uhhhhh.. because it doesn't matter? Did you not read what I've said? You're trying to make an argument that becuause x,y and z are doing the same thing or similar then it's ok for a,b and c to do the same. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter what others are doing if it's the same thing. If you can legitimately show that others are doing the same thing, then they should face the same punishment. So, there is absolutely no reason for me to waste time googling anything if my argument is based on concept.


1. According to your post, a major difference is that Wikileaks is the source that is making it public for everyone to see. Everyone else is merely talking about what have already been released to the public. This is how the argument of Wikileaks trying to "correct the wrong" is invalid, because with the information at their hand, they don't need to make it public for any Joe Snuffy to see. They can easily fight that battle with selected people and only use the WWW as a last resort threat. They are not, because this is a publicity stunt and therefore should be dealt with.

2. I like how you claim the media is putting a political spin to the information leak when you yourself is doing the same thing under the false assumption that it was 100% screened for national security, because they weren't. From what was presented, especially the CPOF reports, these cause a direct endangerment to overseas operations. Before you ask for an example, I just gave it to you, CPOF reports.

Der Spiegel.



Putting words together in a random fashion never makes any sense.



Wikileaks offered the whole lot to the US for their perusal before they posted it in public. The US refused to look at it.

Ignorant cUnt.

So. Alma.

What do you think?

The Government(s) should get used to a world in which Wikileaks and people like them ( you know, journalists and the like) disseminate information via the internet.

Or should the Government shut down the internet?


And also bear in mind the fact that if the 'media' was doing its job properly THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR WIKILEAKS TO FUCKING EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I'm not Alma.

I think Wikileaks knowingly and willingly released information that was gathered deceptively. So, while their actions may not be illegal, they are unethical.

I think the world is not that different with an internet...it's only faster.

I think the state department was stoopid to treat 'sensitive' information so casually.

If Wikileaks was trying to heroically reveal some deep dark corruptive secret, or simply attempting to uncover excessive fleecing or some such within our government, I would view their actions more respectfully. Clearly however that is not the case. It's mostly all just gossip.

The rape charges, at this point, are coincidental.



Edited, Dec 8th 2010 3:51pm by Elinda