• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

No, but there are 43 pages in this thread, think you could tell me which pages you linked them on? Thanks a lot!

Nope, you can do the work yourself. :thumbs:

but here is yet another one.


Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page - Telegraph


"Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!" -Traitor manning.


Really? This is a debate? It seems to be a healthy discussion... but okay, whatever floats your boat.


Any talk of the Greatness that is the Good Reverend is healthy. :pimpdaddy:


I didn't dispute that, I said what I think he should get if I bought your argument, ergo "Even if I conceded that he's some sort of evil America-hater the most I'd roll for is 15 years"


Well the law disagrees with you my friend.


"Until 1961, the last military execution to date, hanging was the sole and official method. Later, the military introduced the electric chair, which was never used.[4] Currently, lethal injection is the sole method.[2]"



The Espionage Act has never been successfully used in this context before. Also, the last people to be executed for espionage were the Rosenbergs in 1953, I doubt they'll break this roll without some actual evidence of significant harm caused. Also, since the Act, the Rosenbergs(who had a role equivalent to Pvt. Manning, by the way), further expansion of free speech has taken place, which could be an issue. Also, the federal government doesn't use death by firing squad. Also, firing squads don't aim for your ass, or your face, or your ass-face. Also, most nations in Europe (where he is) have rules against the death penalty, so that could make extradition problematic with that punishment still on the table. Also, the 1961 treaty between Sweden and the United States lists the offenses that qualify for extradition, and espionage is not among them. Also, this:



Also, Sweden can't extradite him until the business with the sex crimes allegations
that he's wanted for questioning over are cleared up. Also, Sweden isn't full of **** (I consider this to be the greatest obstacle to your plan to kill Assange)

You have an innumerable amount of serious obstacles to getting him shot in his assface. Unless you mean something extrajudicial.



Don't really care. Traitors and spies should be dealt with. :thumbs:
 
Umm...you DO know that there are more people in a country than just thier government right? You also DO know that those other countries also have news media that we have access to right?

Try thinking outside the box a bit ok?
So your statement that the USA relationship to other countries has not been negatively affected is based solely on what has been made public? Interesting, stupid but interesting. :roll:

.
 
Nope, you can do the work yourself. :thumbs:

Fine by me, it was just a request.


That particular one seemed to just randomly assert it, however, I did track down an official support site that confirms this (that he is a homosexual [which for some reason I keep typing out in the wrong order :?])


"Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!" -Traitor manning.

He is a homosexual (as we've established), but without providing any context to that quote it could apply to anything. Just saying.

Any talk of the Greatness that is the Good Reverend is healthy. :pimpdaddy:

Err...

Well the law disagrees with you my friend.

True, and that's why I've said on numerous occasions that if it comes to it, he should accept the ruling. I'll link them if you like.

Don't really care. Traitors and spies should be dealt with. :thumbs:

Ellsberg is still around here these days, go execute him too.

Didn't you see the last half of my message?
 
If it were "baseless" i wouldnt have given you a link. Face it your boy was upset about dadt and decided the best way to be a gay activist was to commit treason.

He needs to be hung.

There is absolutely zero basis for this. What you are doing is taking the fact he is gay and upset about a policy and society discriminatory against gays and using it to imply he is just a disgruntled fag out for revenge. It is baseless and slanderous.

meh, some people need killing. :shrug:

In your opinion, which I think is a quite reprehensible opinion.
 
There is absolutely zero basis for this. What you are doing is taking the fact he is gay and upset about a policy and society discriminatory against gays and using it to imply he is just a disgruntled fag out for revenge. It is baseless and slanderous.


Why are you calling him a fag? I find that highly offensive to gays. You really shouldn't be engaging in such bigoted slurs dood.


I've posted numerous articles. He was upset about a breakup, and the DADT thing, and so he did what he did. Show me evidence to the contrary.

And please leave the bigoted slurs to yourself. thanks.


In your opinion, which I think is a quite reprehensible opinion.


You've obviously never seen things like ethnic cleansing or men murdering women and childeren in the name of thier cause/god/whatever for example. I have, and I've seen much worse and those people I can assure you, are in dire need of some killing.


I find your lack of empathy for the victims of these war crimes, the reprehensible thing. :gunsmilie:
 
So your statement that the USA relationship to other countries has not been negatively affected is based solely on what has been made public? Interesting, stupid but interesting. :roll:

.

At least I am going by something which I have evidence for. You appear to be making baseless accusations based on the very thing that you are trying to say that I am stupid for. You have no more of an idea what is being communicated between officals than I do. Yet you seem to be readily willing to believe that it is negetive. With no proof. Besides if you'll go back to the post that I was responding to the "world" was mentioned...not just the "governments".
 
Why are you calling him a fag? I find that highly offensive to gays. You really shouldn't be engaging in such bigoted slurs dood.

:roll:

I've posted numerous articles. He was upset about a breakup, and the DADT thing, and so he did what he did. Show me evidence to the contrary.

Except your articles do not even shown evidence for your own position, which is basically just your own rationalization necessary for you to slander him without feeling guilty. What your articles show is that he is upset with a military policy discriminatory against him.

You've obviously never seen things like ethnic cleansing or men murdering women and childeren in the name of thier cause/god/whatever for example. I have, and I've seen much worse and those people I can assure you, are in dire need of some killing.

I find your lack of empathy for the victims of these war crimes, the reprehensible thing. :gunsmilie:

Just because I have a strong aversion to killing for any proclaimed reason does not mean I lack empathy, much the opposite in fact. Even were I to witness such events with my own eyes it would not cause me to abandon my respect for all human life.
 
Uhm the penalty for treason at a time of war is death. He betrayed not only his country but his fellow soldiers.

He needs to swing like the treasonous dog that he is.
I don't understand why informing the people is considered a negative or wrong thing. The government is supposed to be for the people by the people, but if they release what the government has done or said, note not current military missions or strategies, it is wrong and evil? Not to mention he does not live in America. Betraying fellow soldiers? How so? Is it because now that the horrors of American wartime policy are released? That seems positive as long as the people get pissed off and want to change that policy, maybe then the soldiers would not be forced to kill innocents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Z3n
At least I am going by something which I have evidence for. You appear to be making baseless accusations based on the very thing that you are trying to say that I am stupid for. You have no more of an idea what is being communicated between officals than I do. Yet you seem to be readily willing to believe that it is negetive. With no proof. Besides if you'll go back to the post that I was responding to the "world" was mentioned...not just the "governments".
You really should quit while you are behind. That you think you know what the World thinks is even stupider. :rofl

.
 
:roll:



Except your articles do not even shown evidence for your own position, which is basically just your own rationalization necessary for you to slander him without feeling guilty. What your articles show is that he is upset with a military policy discriminatory against him.

When you deny the very evidence put before you. You are beyond help. :shrug:

Just because I have a strong aversion to killing for any proclaimed reason does not mean I lack empathy, much the opposite in fact. Even were I to witness such events with my own eyes it would not cause me to abandon my respect for all human life.



Tell me about the respect for the life of a man who would beat a 12 year old girl into submission so she would be a sex slave prostitute for visiting UN troops.


Tell me how much you respect that mans life.
 
I don't understand why informing the people is considered a negative or wrong thing.

You seem to be rather new here so I'll take it easy on ya...First off, there are reasons that certain information is considered "Secret, or Top Secret" You don't have a need for access to that information. That is what you elect representatives for. There are a number of reasons to keep information from getting public that don't have some 'America sucks' reason for letting it loose. And Assange's reason stated by him was to cause chaos in order to bring down governments like ours. Do you believe that is a noble quest of his?

The government is supposed to be for the people by the people, but if they release what the government has done or said, note not current military missions or strategies, it is wrong and evil?

Did you ever tell someone something that you didn't necessarily getting out to everyone?

Not to mention he does not live in America.

America can still prosecute him. Check your history, and Law.

Assange himself knows this.

Robinson said they're hearing from lawyers in the U.S. that an indictment of Assange could be imminent.

snip

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, the man behind the publication of more than a 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables, could face spying charges in the U.S. related to the Espionage Act, Assange's lawyer said today.

snip

Justice Department officials declined to comment on the possible coming charges, but earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the release of the documents had put the United States at risk and said he authorized a criminal investigation into Assange.

"The lives of people who work for the American people has been put at risk; the American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that are, I believe, arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can," Holder said Tuesday. "We have a very serious, active, ongoing investigation that is criminal in nature. I authorized just last week a number of things to be done so that we can hopefully get to the bottom of this and hold people accountable, as they -- as they should be."

Wikileaks Julian Assange: Lawyers Prepare for U.S. Espionage Indictment - ABC News

So not living in America has no bearing on this debate.

Betraying fellow soldiers? How so?

That would be PFC Bradley Manning held in Ft. Benning I think.

Is it because now that the horrors of American wartime policy are released?

The horrors eh. Well, no one that has ever served would tell you that War is a cakewalk. But no, it isn't about American policy entirely, it is about being able to conduct diplomacy, and having those that deal with us able to speak without thinking that it will end up on line for all to see.

That seems positive as long as the people get pissed off and want to change that policy, maybe then the soldiers would not be forced to kill innocents.

Whom are the 'innocents' in your eyes?

j-mac
 
You seem to be rather new here so I'll take it easy on ya...First off, there are reasons that certain information is considered "Secret, or Top Secret" You don't have a need for access to that information. That is what you elect representatives for. There are a number of reasons to keep information from getting public that don't have some 'America sucks' reason for letting it loose. And Assange's reason stated by him was to cause chaos in order to bring down governments like ours. Do you believe that is a noble quest of his?

Part in Bold: Really? Why would something like this be kept secret? One would think that it would be more beneficial to put it in the publics eye so more pressure can be applied...

CHINA CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS TO IRAN

Underlined part: No the reason that I elect officials is to represent what I want done in my country. No one elects their reps to hide secrets from them. To say anything else is disengenous at best.

Red part: Proof please.

Did you ever tell someone something that you didn't necessarily getting out to everyone?

Only a fool does that. The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone. Otherwise you just set yourself up for a fall.

America can still prosecute him. Check your history, and Law.

Perhaps you should check your history and law instead. There are currently senetors that are trying to get the Shield Act passed specifically so that they can legally charge Assaunge with a crime. As it stands they have no legal grounds to charge him. Otherwise the Shield Act would not be necessary if the Espionage Act was all that was needed.

As for History you should read up on the NY Times court case in reference to the Pentagon Papers.

So not living in America has no bearing on this debate.

It does have part bearing on this debate.

That would be PFC Bradley Manning held in Ft. Benning I think.

Correct. Being the one that actually stole the information and he is an American Citizen he can and will no doubt be charged under the espionage act and even possibly treason. Though I don't think that he has been charged as of yet. Last I heard he hadn't been anyways.

Whom are the 'innocents' in your eyes?

j-mac

I would imagine that he would be talking about civilians. You know..the "collateral damage" of wars.
 
Last edited:
Tell me about the respect for the life of a man who would beat a 12 year old girl into submission so she would be a sex slave prostitute for visiting UN troops.


Tell me how much you respect that mans life.


Huh? What's this got to do with Assaunge and/or Wikileaks?
 
When you deny the very evidence put before you. You are beyond help.

Except all you put forward is that a gay man has a problem with a policy discriminatory against gays. You are acting as though every gay man that has a problem with discriminatory policies is some hardline gay activist out for blood. However, just in the hopes this will shut you up:

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. war in Iraq: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing "insurgent" literature which, when he had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

Source: Salon

Tell me about the respect for the life of a man who would beat a 12 year old girl into submission so she would be a sex slave prostitute for visiting UN troops.


Tell me how much you respect that mans life.

As much as I respect anyone's life.
 
You must have no respect for anyone and wish everyone were dead.

Actually, I feel the opposite. I get maybe some people can not understand that.
 
You seem to be rather new here so I'll take it easy on ya...
Hasn't stopped anyone else so don't hold back :p

First off, there are reasons that certain information is considered "Secret, or Top Secret" You don't have a need for access to that information.
We, as citizens, need to know what our government is doing. If it is supposedly representing us, shouldn't we know how we are being represented just in case they are making a mistake?

That is what you elect representatives for. There are a number of reasons to keep information from getting public that don't have some 'America sucks' reason for letting it loose. And Assange's reason stated by him was to cause chaos in order to bring down governments like ours. Do you believe that is a noble quest of his?
Regardless of his intentions, I still think informing the people is a good thing. We deserve to know what is being done in our country and by our country. After all, the constitution said the government should be by the people, for the people. How is that so if we don't even know what the government is doing?

Did you ever tell someone something that you didn't necessarily getting out to everyone?
Yes, but I am not in a position of power.

America can still prosecute him. Check your history, and Law.
I do not doubt you. But I think it shouldn't be so.


That would be PFC Bradley Manning held in Ft. Benning I think.
Though I think Wikileaks should back him up legally, it was his choice, and a noble one but a dangerous one.


The horrors eh. Well, no one that has ever served would tell you that War is a cakewalk. But no, it isn't about American policy entirely, it is about being able to conduct diplomacy, and having those that deal with us able to speak without thinking that it will end up on line for all to see.
America does not go to war because someone said something without speaking. Every war is planned out and well articulated for one main goal. That goal is to keep America a global super power. But obviously wars are not a cakewalk. But a lot of unnecessary deaths can and should be avoided.

Whom are the 'innocents' in your eyes?
Civilians that were killed.
 
Gotta kind of agree with Redress here, and its part of the grey area in regards to Wikileaks being "The Press".

Research a large variety of matters, meticulously double and triple checking things with various sources, and relaying information in a narritive fashion of a news report is significantly different then directly reprinting classified information in essentially its original format.

Would you consider someone that just grabs a domain name, scans a bunch of government files into a computer, and then throws them up on the website a "journalist"?

The argument you seem to be proposing (as well as others) is that there is a différence between the right to disseminate information by the press to that of the right to disseminate information by the people. You ask if there’s a legal distinction to be made upon whom has the right to publish material and who doesn’t, submitting a journalist or member of the press versus any random person or entity.



The SCOTUS as well as most legal scholers believe the Freedom of the Press Clause has no significance independent of the Freedom of Speech Clause. The First Amendment confers no special privileges on journalists. In fact, most courts have determined that Freedom of the Press has derived from Freedom of Speech.

So as it stands today, as well as the previous two hundred plus years under the First Admendment, whether one is a highly qualified and recognised journalist working for a longstanding, internationally recognized entity of the press, some blogger, some guy speaking from a street corner, or a domain name, all are within their rights to disseminate material either through newspapers, blogs, streetcorners, lectures, speeches, etc

In other words, as is related to the subject of dissemination of information pertained to this thread, there is no legal distinction between wikileaks and The NYT. You and I have the right as any within "the press" to disseminate information.
 
The argument you seem to be proposing (as well as others) is that there is a différence between the right to disseminate information by the press to that of the right to disseminate information by the people. You ask if there’s a legal distinction to be made upon whom has the right to publish material and who doesn’t, submitting a journalist or member of the press versus any random person or entity.



The SCOTUS as well as most legal scholers believe the Freedom of the Press Clause has no significance independent of the Freedom of Speech Clause. The First Amendment confers no special privileges on journalists. In fact, most courts have determined that Freedom of the Press has derived from Freedom of Speech.

So as it stands today, as well as the previous two hundred plus years under the First Admendment, whether one is a highly qualified and recognised journalist working for a longstanding, internationally recognized entity of the press, some blogger, some guy speaking from a street corner, or a domain name, all are within their rights to disseminate material either through newspapers, blogs, streetcorners, lectures, speeches, etc

In other words, as is related to the subject of dissemination of information pertained to this thread, there is no legal distinction between wikileaks and The NYT. You and I have the right as any within "the press" to disseminate information.

Just outta curiosity...are you a lawyer perchance? Cause your post sounded kind of lawyery to me. lol
 
Part in Bold: Really? Why would something like this be kept secret? One would think that it would be more beneficial to put it in the publics eye so more pressure can be applied...

CHINA CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS TO IRAN

And do you by chance have some position in American diplomacy, I know I don't. But I do think I understand the basics, and some of them include not releasing information that would be publicly embarrassing to one country or another that we are involved with. For example. We are talking to country A who gives us information on country B that is an ally or some of our enemies but that we do business with, that information gets out into the public and embarrasses country B who then turns and scolds country A and us for the information leaking out. Do you think that the relationships between those two countries is the same from that point forward?

Underlined part: No the reason that I elect officials is to represent what I want done in my country. No one elects their reps to hide secrets from them. To say anything else is disengenous at best.

And what exactly is that?

Red part: Proof please.

Suggested reading: Assange: International Subversive - Grendel Report

Only a fool does that. The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone. Otherwise you just set yourself up for a fall.

Uh huh...So are going to be honest in this discussion?

Perhaps you should check your history and law instead. There are currently senetors that are trying to get the Shield Act passed specifically so that they can legally charge Assaunge with a crime. As it stands they have no legal grounds to charge him. Otherwise the Shield Act would not be necessary if the Espionage Act was all that was needed.

Um yeah.....

"What we're investigating is a crime under U.S. law," Philip J. Crowley, the chief State Department spokesman, said Tuesday. "The provision of 250,000 classified documents from someone inside the government to someone outside the government is a crime."

His remarks mirrored sharp words Monday from Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., who said prosecutors are weighing not only espionage but other crimes possibly committed by the Australian citizen, who through his website postings has embarrassed U.S. diplomats and many foreign governments they deal with.

"We have a very serious criminal investigation that's underway, and we're looking at all of the things that we can do to try to stem the flow of this information," Holder said.

Holder added that as prosecutors look beyond espionage, "there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal." Among them, law enforcement sources said, is charging Assange with receiving stolen property.

WikiLeaks, Julian Assange: U.S. may seek extradition of WikiLeaks founder - latimes.com

As for History you should read up on the NY Times court case in reference to the Pentagon Papers.

Trying to have it both ways now are we? You can't say that Assange is unchargeable due to his status as an Aussie, or that he didn't expressly steal the documents themselves, then turn and say that our constitutional protections of 1st Amendment as a journalist (which he is NOT) applies.

It does have part bearing on this debate.

And what part is that?

Correct. Being the one that actually stole the information and he is an American Citizen he can and will no doubt be charged under the espionage act and even possibly treason. Though I don't think that he has been charged as of yet. Last I heard he hadn't been anyways.

I believe that treason is appropriate in this case, and in my opinion it is long past due that some of America's traitors be actually charged and dealt with.

I would imagine that he would be talking about civilians. You know..the "collateral damage" of wars.

Do you believe that a country like America cares nothing for those civilians killed?

j-mac
 
And do you by chance have some position in American diplomacy, I know I don't. But I do think I understand the basics, and some of them include not releasing information that would be publicly embarrassing to one country or another that we are involved with. For example. We are talking to country A who gives us information on country B that is an ally or some of our enemies but that we do business with, that information gets out into the public and embarrasses country B who then turns and scolds country A and us for the information leaking out. Do you think that the relationships between those two countries is the same from that point forward?

Lets pose a scenario here. Lets say that China does all that is in the link I previously provided and the weapons end up in terrorist hands as posed in that link. Those terrorists decide to use one of those weapons on US soil. Which do you think would be more beneficial to the US? Embarressing China by releaseing that info before the attack or keeping it a secret and people finding out that China were the ones that sold those weapons when they knew it could get into terrorist hands? Which do you think would cause more harm?

And what exactly is that?

Lots of things. More than I can list at the moment. But keeping secrets is definately NOT one of them.


Sorry, not even going to bother with grendel.

Uh huh...So are going to be honest in this discussion?

I have already been honest. Whats your point?

Um yeah.....

No body ever said that they couldn't try. Weather they get some where with it is another thing. Most of what they have said though is along the lines of posturing. After all...can't very well keep up their image if they don't act outraged right?

Trying to have it both ways now are we? You can't say that Assange is unchargeable due to his status as an Aussie, or that he didn't expressly steal the documents themselves, then turn and say that our constitutional protections of 1st Amendment as a journalist (which he is NOT) applies.

Actually yes I can state so. The 1st amendment applies to everyone. Not just American citizens. The espionage act however since it is not a part of the Constitution but is a US law does not apply outside of the US jurisdiction.

And btw, as has already been linked and showed in this thread a news source can be applied to anything that disseminates news. Even pamphlets are protected under the 1st amendment as they are considered a part of the "Press". So yes, Assaunge as part of the wikileaks news agency is protected under our first amendment rights.

And what part is that?

Assaunge is a part of a news agency. Therefore he is protected under the 1st amendment. If you seriously think that his lawyers won't present this fact in any type of court hearing inside the US you would be sorely mistaken. It doesn't matter if you think that wikileaks isn't a news agency. The courts have already deemed it so via a court ruleing in another case.

I believe that treason is appropriate in this case, and in my opinion it is long past due that some of America's traitors be actually charged and dealt with.

In regards to Manning, most definately.

Do you believe that a country like America cares nothing for those civilians killed?

Over all, yes we do care for those civilians killed. But with things like the following happen you have to wonder sometimes....

Link
 
Last edited:
I have a question that directly relates to this issue. Being a conservative and supporting Wikileaks because I dislike a big AND deceitful government, does that make me a rarity? Where do both the Left and Right reside on this issue, since both Hillary Clinton and Obama are against Wikileaks, as well as a majority of conservatives. Is there really a definitive side that is for or against Wikileaks, is it an issue everyone is primarily against, or is there simply a lot of different factions for and against Wikileaks? Basically, I'm trying to see where everyone generally stands on this issue.
 
Myself: I have always valued the ability of the state to conduct its affairs without feeling constrained by actors who are likewise unconstrained. We have internal mechanisms for this sort of thing, and I do not value what they are doing.

I'm not really going to go into much detail. For the most part, I did find my opinions rather well-versed by another author from National Affairs.
 
Last edited:
I have a question that directly relates to this issue. Being a conservative and supporting Wikileaks because I dislike a big AND deceitful government, does that make me a rarity? Where do both the Left and Right reside on this issue, since both Hillary Clinton and Obama are against Wikileaks, as well as a majority of conservatives. Is there really a definitive side that is for or against Wikileaks, is it an issue everyone is primarily against, or is there simply a lot of different factions for and against Wikileaks? Basically, I'm trying to see where everyone generally stands on this issue.

I praise you for your criticism of deceitful government. Real conservatives like... Ron Paul agree with you, so I don't see you as being so on the fringe. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom