Beck is a curious dude, I think he is trying to figure out what is going on in the world just like the rest of us. But, it is interesting that a man like Soros would be either knowingly, or unwittingly helping an Anarchist like Assange that self describes his motives for releasing this materiel as intentionally causing chaos. It is a Soros playbook.
You didn't address how this is a valid "connection" to Soros, nor how a connection to Soros, if it existed, makes Assange worse. I honestly have no idea what Beck is trying to do here, it just seems like blind character assassination by association. He did this to President-Elect Obama, to his wife, to anyone he wants to get fired in the administration... I don't see what's so bad about being connected to George Soros. Can you please enlighten me?
I would think they were talking about PFC Bradley Manning, and not Assange. Assange's charges would more likely be espionage.
The Espionage Act has never been successfully employed against any sort of media organization. Review by the courts has stated that "imminent lawless action" is required to be shown by the prosecution [
Brandenburg v. Ohio]
True, Eric Holder is considering charging Assange under the act, but whether it would succeed or not is extremely sketchy. If anything it would bring up the question of the constitutionality of the act, which would be a good thing. Again, I am opposed to the law, but I still respect it. One sometimes must drink hemlock for the rule of law.
I see, so if they don't happen immediately then no harm, no foul? is that it?
You can't throw blame at Wikileaks for causing harm if no harm has yet been caused. The most you can say is that it "might cause harm", and even that you have to justify. Go and look at the files they've released, find some stuff that could potentially cause harm, then come back and I'll accept that the release "might cause harm".
Did you read the question? The diplomat laid it out quite clearly.
Yes, and I denounce his answer. However, I don't see how this is a scathing indictment of the man. People dodge questions all the time. Did you watch the 2008 elections? Barrack Obama and John McCain? Those two dodged every second question thrown at them. Sarah Palin? Don't even get me started on Sarah Palin dodging questions... The fact is, I could likely find a similar instance for every person alive. If I searched hard enough I'm sure I could find an instance of Mother Teresa dodging a question. What's your point. I neglect to see how this example separates him in any way from the rest of the population.
Bradley Manning is being charged. But I find it interesting that you find no moral problem with just posting anything out there just because you can.
I know he's being charged, but he's not the source of the entire leak, and certainly not the source of all of Wikileaks' leaks. They have been at this for years. The United States is only one small area of their work. There are laws against military personnel leaking classified material, charge them as appropriate. I have a Socratic view on law.
Who says I do? I have long railed against the NYTimes for blabbing secrets that aided our enemies. In that sense they work against their own country.
In that very same program Glenn Beck spread the content of those leaks, almost every commentator on Fox, every commentator on MSNBC, most of the print media, and the majority of world media have spread the content of the leaks. Glenn Beck even boasted how they validated some of his predictions. I don't see how spreaders of the material being overseas negates their repsonsibility according to your position, after all, Wikileaks is hosted overseas. Do you want to charge all these people? I personally viewed and downloaded parts of the Afghan War Logs and sent quotes around to my friends. Does this mean I should be arrested?
I don't see how Wikileaks being the second party to spread the material makes them more guilty than the third, forth, fifth, or millionth party.
ALSO, you said that these aid the US's enemies... please provide a specific instance...
No one is talking censorship. It would be nice though if ethics were displayed.
You want to arrest someone for spreading information. That information is therefore censored...
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."
You're welcome. Are you an Anarchist as well?
I dislike labels. Ask me about some issues and I'll give you my opinions. I respect the rule of law, if Assange is guilty of something then charge him as appropriate, that doesn't stop be disagreeing with it, nor does it make me an anarchist.
Assange the sorry Aussie needs to get bitch-slapped for at least the next 20 years, working in a prison laundry somewhere, sleeping in a tiny bed. Then doing it again the next day.
I am astounded that people just assume that he's guilty and desire him to be imprisoned. At the most don't you want him to go through a fair trial and accept the consequences?