• 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

Infinite Chaos said:
Please elaborate. You'll find that the Wikileaks have shown our UK politicians pretending to the UK public that they wouldnn't kowtow to US interests and then going and doing just that for the Iraq inquiry or trying to play up the "Special Relationship."

One thing Assange has done well is expose British leaders as liars and more interested in protecting US interests when there is any conflict with UK interests.
Click to expand...

+1

What special relationship? No such thing.
We should thank Julian for exposing this unfairly balanced give-take disgrace of a alliance with the United States where it takes and does nothing for UK apart from putting our soldiers on the front line for US interest.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
He is an enemy of the state, when he claimed that he was going to hyperfocus on the US and leak crap that would get our troops killed, he became as bad as a terrorist in my eyes.
Click to expand...

No offense intended here, but the leak of the footage from the helicopter in 2007 is something that the U.S. government should/could have dealt with years ago...and didn't.

I love our military as much as anyone, but we should not be covering up wrongdoing by our armed forces. That serves no public interest.
 
Redress said:
In fact, the US has done nothing improper.
Click to expand...

This claim is a bit of a reach. When we posture that we're going to prosecute this man under the 1917 espionage act, and put pressure on our allies to arrest him, that's improper, in my book, at least. When conservatives rage publicly that the man should be killed for embarrassing us, that makes us look like complete morons. When he's labeled a "terrorist" for releasing this information, good grief, we've lost our goddamn minds.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Please elaborate. You'll find that the Wikileaks have shown our UK politicians pretending to the UK public that they wouldnn't kowtow to US interests and then going and doing just that for the Iraq inquiry or trying to play up the "Special Relationship."

One thing Assange has done well is expose British leaders as liars and more interested in protecting US interests when there is any conflict with UK interests.
Click to expand...

From an "historical" perspective uk and us interests have been "essentially" the same thu most of the 20th century. Perhaps you were unaware. I suggest reading a history book or two. ;)
 
Catz Part Deux said:
This claim is a bit of a reach. When we posture that we're going to prosecute this man under the 1917 espionage act, and put pressure on our allies to arrest him, that's improper, in my book, at least. When conservatives rage publicly that the man should be killed for embarrassing us, that makes us look like complete morons. When he's labeled a "terrorist" for releasing this information, good grief, we've lost our goddamn minds.
Click to expand...



For embarrasing us? How about for giving information to the enemy that puts our troops in greater danger.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
No offense intended here, but the leak of the footage from the helicopter in 2007 is something that the U.S. government should/could have dealt with years ago...and didn't.
Click to expand...

You mean the "Civillians" who were running for guns and what not, that were correctly lit up?


I love our military as much as anyone, but we should not be covering up wrongdoing by our armed forces. That serves no public interest.
Click to expand...


We don't.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
For embarrasing us? How about for giving information to the enemy that puts our troops in greater danger.
Click to expand...

.....not to mention the afghani collaborators and their families who al qaeda is currently hunting down as we speak.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I keep hearing this phrase. How, precisely, were our troops endangered? Give me some specifics, Rev.
Click to expand...

Is this really that hard to comprehend for you? source:confused:
U.S.: WikiLeaks release a hit list for al-QaidaBy Sharon Theimer - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Dec 7, 2010 11:25:36 EST

WASHINGTON — In a disclosure of some of the most sensitive information yet revealed by WikiLeaks, the website has put out a secret cable listing sites worldwide that the U.S. considers critical to its national security. U.S. officials said the leak amounts to giving a hit list to terrorists.
Among the locations cited in the diplomatic cable from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are undersea communications lines, mines, antivenin factories and suppliers of food and manufacturing materials.
The Pentagon declined to comment Monday on the details of what it called “stolen” documents containing classified information. But a spokesman, Col. David Lapan, called the disclosure “damaging” and said it gives valuable information to adversaries.

The State Department echoed the Pentagon’s statement. “Releasing such information amounts to giving a targeting list to groups like al-Qaida,” agency spokesman P.J. Crowley said. British Foreign Secretary William Hague condemned the disclosure, telling the BBC it was a “reprehensible” act committed “without regard to wider concerns of security, the security of millions of people.”

WikiLeaks released the 2009 Clinton cable on Sunday.

In the message, marked “secret,” Clinton asked U.S. diplomatic posts to help update a list of sites around the world “which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States.”The list was considered so confidential that the contributors were advised to come up with the information on their own: Posts are “not being asked to consult with host governments in respect to this request,” Clinton wrote...................
Click to expand...
 
Dutch said:
Is this really that hard to comprehend for you?
Click to expand...

Do you think that the terrorists haven't already scoped out our vulnerabilities, and aren't continually engaged in this activity? Please.

Do you really think they needed a crib sheet?

As I stated, Dutch, there is a reason that this list wasn't top secret...it wasn't really a secret.

Also...the list that the article is discussing doesn't put the troops in danger.

Maybe...you could try researching this subject, reading what was leaked, and thinking about the dangers of a government with too many secrets from its own citizens.
 
I think it's bogus how the US is trying to stifle Assange from voicing the truth. The government shouldn't be lying to the people, so if someone decides to actually play the investigator and reveal the lies, then so be it. Should we be a nation built on lies? If you don't mind being lied to, then that's on you.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
What I do find odd is how some folks here are all over these two women as liars and what not, given we don't have all the information.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a woman and I've never been raped so I am not entirely sure how this works, but I am fairly certain that you do not throw your rapist a big party the next day or take him out to breakfast. Generally I would think being raped puts a damper on any subsequent activities together.

Wikileaks if you actually read through this last leak was actually confirming exactly what we do know. The US is a force for good, and many of these other countries play a two faced game of back room dealing while stating something else publically.
Click to expand...

Have you considered the possibility that we might not consider classifying information about other countries as much or as highly as we might consider if it were information concerning our own government? These cables actually reveal a number of disquieting things like the U.S. spying on the UN in defiance of our laws, attempting to manipulate court proceedings overseas to protect abuses of the law by our government, and attempts to bribe other countries to achieve policy objectives.

This is stuff that isn't even Top Secret. Hell, most of it is not even classified with much of the remainder being merely confidential. We are talking about information that is mostly on the lowest-end of U.S. government secrecy.
 
Britain ---> Sweden ---> U.S.

It's going to happen. Just watch. All they have to do is invent some new laws to make it happen, which they are surely already doing.
 
Orion said:
Britain ---> Sweden ---> U.S.

It's going to happen. Just watch. All they have to do is invent some new laws to make it happen, which they are surely already doing.
Click to expand...



Right, we already see here attack the rape victim mentality, while calling this meglomaniac wikilieaks guy a "Victim"....
 
Catz Part Deux said:
What are you on about? Your post makes zero sense, HH.
Click to expand...



Man accused of rape, and what not, must be a huge government conspiracy, the two women who accused the man, must be lying.......


That's the nonsense I am talking about. Let the trial go through, but this conspiracy bunk crap belongs in the conspiracy crapper.
 
Don't wear a condom, go to jail.

The refusal to wear a condom is a form of terrorism. Assange is a terrorist. Get him.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I thought there were two complaints against the man. From two different women.
Click to expand...

There are, both the same complaint: No condom. I don't really consider that rape, as we understand the term in the U.S. Apparently, the sex was consensual, but the not-wearing-the-condom was non-consensual.

p.s. Swedish people are strange.

p.p.s. More clarification.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opin...rious-Crime-or-Anti-WikiLeaks-Conspiracy-6080

•The Sordid and Suspicious Story

The Daily Mail's Richard Pendlebury investigates what he says is the entire story of what happened in Sweden, which he says reveals "several puzzling flaws in the prosecution case." Pendlebury even includes blurred photos of the two accusers. A key moment comes when "the female [Swedish police] interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the *second, concluded that both women were victims: that *Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation."

Pendlebury concludes:
The Stockholm police want to question [Assange] regarding the possible rape of a woman and separate allegations from another Swedish admirer, with whom he was having a concurrent fling. But there remains a huge question mark over the evidence. Many people believe that the 39-year-old *Australian-born whistleblower is the victim of a U.S. government dirty tricks campaign. They argue that the whole squalid affair is a sexfalla, which translates loosely from the Swedish as a 'honeytrap'.

•It's More Complicated--And Could Be Rape
Feministe's Jill Filipovic, a lawyer, says it could be considered "withdrawal of consent," which is a form of sexual assault, if the sex became non-consensual during the act. In the first case, when his condom broke, Assange refused his partner's request to stop, which made his act assault. In the second case, "condom use was negotiated for and Assange agreed to wear a condom but didn’t, and the woman didn’t realize it until after they had sex." Filipovic says "withdrawal of consent" is often considered rape in Sweden, but is often not in the U.S., which may be why U.S. observers seem not to believe the charges.
Click to expand...

I stand by my original post...swedish people are weird.
 
Last edited:
Deception vitiated consent.

Assange told the woman he was going to wear a condom. But when the lights went out, he took out a packet of Alka-Seltzer, ruffled the packaging to make it appear he opened a condom pack. Then he plunged ahead commando style. Bad man.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Assange told the woman he was going to wear a condom. But when the lights went out, he took out a packet of Alka-Seltzer, ruffled the packaging to make it appear he opened a condom pack. Then he plunged ahead commando style. Bad man.
Click to expand...

What, was she a virgin? How did she not notice this? No offense, y'all, but sex with a condom is like screwing a balloon. You'd have to be highly intoxicated or extremely high to miss the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom