Assange Is Fucked

[hellblazer]

How is this different from something like watergate?

It's not even close. Do you even know what happened with Watergate?

So USA killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians is no problem to you?

That false claim was debunked years ago. Take the time to research it yourself.

 

[Mikesev]

That false claim was debunked years ago. Take the time to research it yourself.

Is there an amount you'd deem unacceptable?

 

[hellblazer]

Is there an amount you'd deem unacceptable?

How many would have died under Saddam's continued rule? How many were killed by Islamic extremists? How many were collateral damage?

And finally, how many of the "dead" were simply made up by liars looking to politicize the war? I see that didn't bother you very much.

 

[bluechinagroup]

It's called "You are an idiot".

Shut up.

Free speech is good and all, but that's no reason to put someone's credit card information out in public, let alone sensitive diplomatic information.

It's just not cool, and if it isn't illegal it should be.

You're the one putting words in my mouth now as well as using petty insults and telling me to shut up. It pretty much proves how intellectually lazy you are.

I never said you should put someone's credit card information out on public. Plus wikileaks hasn't done that. In fact they've been pretty good about blacking out the names of informants.

Leaking sensitive diplomatic information is not the same thing as leaking out credit card details.

Also the U.S. constantly uses the excuse of "national security" to hide embarrassments and things they do not want to be held accountable for by the general public. Without wikileaks we wouldn't have known what was really going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Think for yourself for once and stop drinking the Kool Aid. Ignorance is not bliss.

 

[bluechinagroup]

Below is a good article that explains why it will be an uphill struggle for the Obama administration to prosecute Assange:

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act

Below are some notable quotes

Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States.

Holder was asked Monday how the United States could prosecute Assange, who is an Australian citizen. "Let me be very clear," he replied. "It is not saber rattling.

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." He did not indicate that Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

Although the Justice Department has taken the position that media organizations could be prosecuted for printing leaked classified information under the legislation, that prospect is unlikely because of official aversion to running afoul of the First Amendment, experts said. Indeed, the Justice Department has never brought such a case, they said.
"Whenever you're talking about a media organization, the department is going to look very closely to ensure that any prosecution doesn't undermine the valid First Amendment functioning of the press," said Kenneth Wainstein, former assistant attorney general in the national security division.

But, said former federal prosecutor Baruch Weiss, that statute raises difficulties of its own. "How do you prove that a particular cable about secret negotiations with Russia was dangerous to national security? You have to disclose more classified information to explain to the jury the damage brought about by the disclosure," he said.

Perhaps the most significant issue is the Constitution's protection of people's right to speak freely and to exchange ideas.
"If the government were to prosecute the person who received and disseminated the classified information - as opposed to the individual who leaked it from within the government - mainstream media would express the concern that they could face prosecution for reporting information they routinely receive from government insiders," Wainstein said.

Fundamentally, Weiss said, the WikiLeaks case "is not about the disclosure of troop movements to al-Qaeda or giving the recipe for the plutonium bomb to North Korea. This is the widespread publication of information that is important in determining the future policy of the United States, that could be very important for people in assessing how well our government is doing its job. It's a good example of the problems created by the First Amendment clashing with criminal law, the law protecting national defense information."

All the experts agreed that it may be difficult for the United States to gain access to Assange, who apparently has avoided traveling to the country. Most nations' extradition treaties exempt crimes viewed as political. "I can imagine a lot of Western allies would view this not as a criminal act, but as a political act," said Weiss, who was on the legal team that defended the two former pro-Israel lobbyists.

 

[magicberry]

I think it is about time there was a company like this with a ceo that has some balls... seriously the media is usually filled with depressing shit and if it wasn't for anti depresants alot of depressed fuckers out there would be committing hurry curry...

If this one guy can start a company that has got the governments after him because he is sharing the real facts of their operations and intentions then it does go to show that governments are up to some terrible shit that they want no one to find out... The only security risk that he poses is the ones he is showing to the respective governments own staff... he didn't fabricate the shit... people working for the government did...

This man did in 10-20 years what no media have done for over 100!

 

[Ar Scion]

Is there an amount you'd deem unacceptable?

Yo. How the fuck are you gonna justify one alleged crime with another?

You're the one putting words in my mouth now as well as using petty insults and telling me to shut up. It pretty much proves how intellectually lazy you are.

I never said you should put someone's credit card information out on public. Plus wikileaks hasn't done that. In fact they've been pretty good about blacking out the names of informants.

Leaking sensitive diplomatic information is not the same thing as leaking out credit card details.

Also the U.S. constantly uses the excuse of "national security" to hide embarrassments and things they do not want to be held accountable for by the general public. Without wikileaks we wouldn't have known what was really going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Think for yourself for once and stop drinking the Kool Aid. Ignorance is not bliss.

Ima start putting a hell of a lot more than words in your mouth.

If the US is doing anything wrong- misusing national security as a reason to hide things as you allege, it's up to the US to decide what to do about it. We got a fully functional legal system here.

And WikiLeaks doesn't. It doesn't have a legal system. It isn't an American entity. It doesn't abide by US regulations. It doesn't support American interests.

Therefore it shouldn't have our information. Bottom line.

If this shit bothers you so much, go file a lawsuit. The ACLU will have your balls in their mouth before you can say "Yes".

It sounds like you're the kind of libtard that feels guilty for everything America does, but sign off on any crime non-US entities commit.

 

[bluechinagroup]

If the US is doing anything wrong- misusing national security as a reason to hide things as you allege, it's up to the US to decide what to do about it. We got a fully functional legal system here.

And WikiLeaks doesn't. It doesn't have a legal system. It isn't an American entity. It doesn't abide by US regulations. It doesn't support American interests.

Therefore it shouldn't have our information. Bottom line.

If this shit bothers you so much, go file a lawsuit. The ACLU will have your balls in their mouth before you can say "Yes".

It sounds like you're the kind of libtard that feels guilty for everything America does, but sign off on any crime non-US entities commit.

First of all, I'm not a libtard. You just come off as an unsophisticated moron using a shallow label like "libtard". People's political views are more complex than the one dimensional concept of "left wing" and "right wing". It's pretty obvious you totally lack political maturity and will just let your political party do all the thinking for you.

In fact I used to be a GOP supporter when I lived in the US. Unlike you though, I've woken up and realized the two party system is a sham. I currently live in Hong Kong which is recognized as the freest economy in the world by both Cato and the Heritage Foundation. Even a nationalist sheep such as yourself know that both Heritage and Cato are conservative think tanks. Hong Kong has both low taxes (15% income tax on the top bracket) and limited government regulations on business activity.

Wikileaks doesn't have a legal system because it is not a sovereign nation. It is a media organization that LAWFULLY publishes documents it collects from whistle blowers. Maybe try comparing apples with apples next time.

Tell me what "US regulations" does it not abide by? Why does every organization need to be "Pro USA" and support US interests? You're not making any sense and are just throwing around shit about "not having a legal system" and "doesn't comply with US regulations" and hoping maybe one of your inept talking points will stick.

So in your fucked up view, is the 1st amendment considered null and void if it conflicts with "US interests"? Isn't that what authoritarian countries do?

If the US is doing anything wrong- misusing national security as a reason to hide things as you allege, it's up to the US to decide what to do about it. We got a fully functional legal system here.

This right here is incredible. It's up to the US to hold itself accountable? Isn't that a lot like having the wolf guarding the hen house?

If this shit bothers you so much, go file a lawsuit. The ACLU will have your balls in their mouth before you can say "Yes".

Like your entire incoherent and poorly thought out post, this makes no sense. File a lawsuit for what exactly? Without wikileaks acting as a watchdog, the U.S. government would have covered everything that was really going on in Iraq and elsewhere. Without wikileaks, a lawsuit would not be helpful since the plaintiff would have no grounds to sue and the government would continue to be held unaccountable by the general public.

"Durrrrrrrrr sue!" is not a solution, so stop pretending it is one.

Ima start putting a hell of a lot more than words in your mouth.

Sorry you need to ask your boyfriend to do that for you. I don't swing that way.

It's kinda cool that you did come out of the closet right on wickedfire though! I applaud your bravery! It takes guts to do something like that.

How does it feel to be an openly gay man now?

 

[Ar Scion]

First of all, I'm not a libtard. You just come off as an unsophisticated moron using a shallow label like "libtard". People's political views are more complex than the one dimensional concept of "left wing" and "right wing". It's pretty obvious you totally lack political maturity and will just let your political party do all the thinking for you.

In fact I used to be a GOP supporter when I lived in the US. Unlike you though, I've woken up and realized the two party system is a sham. I currently live in Hong Kong which is recognized as the freest economy in the world by both Cato and the Heritage Foundation. Even a nationalist sheep such as yourself know that both Heritage and Cato are conservative think tanks. Hong Kong has both low taxes (15% income tax on the top bracket) and limited government regulations on business activity.

Wikileaks doesn't have a legal system because it is not a sovereign nation. It is a media organization that LAWFULLY publishes documents it collects from whistle blowers. Maybe try comparing apples with apples next time.

Tell me what "US regulations" does it not abide by? Why does every organization need to be "Pro USA" and support US interests? You're not making any sense and are just throwing around shit about "not having a legal system" and "doesn't comply with US regulations" and hoping maybe one of your inept talking points will stick.

So in your fucked up view, is the 1st amendment considered null and void if it conflicts with "US interests"? Isn't that what authoritarian countries do?



This right here is incredible. It's up to the US to hold itself accountable? Isn't that a lot like having the wolf guarding the hen house?



Like your entire incoherent and poorly thought out post, this makes no sense. File a lawsuit for what exactly? Without wikileaks acting as a watchdog, the U.S. government would have covered everything that was really going on in Iraq and elsewhere. Without wikileaks, a lawsuit would not be helpful since the plaintiff would have no grounds to sue and the government would continue to be held unaccountable by the general public.

"Durrrrrrrrr sue!" is not a solution, so stop pretending it is one.



Sorry you need to ask your boyfriend to do that for you. I don't swing that way.

It's kinda cool that you did come out of the closet right on wickedfire though! I applaud your bravery! It takes guts to do something like that.

How does it feel to be an openly gay man now?

I get it. You ran away to live in Hong Kong now so you don't give a shit about the US.

Your opinion doesn't count here.

 

[BluAffiliate]

Don't fuck with bluechinagroup. He knows his shit.

 

[Moxie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM1HlfVF4I4&]YouTube - Ron Paul: Don't Blame Wikileaks![/ame]

 

[hellblazer]

Wikileaks doesn't have a legal system because it is not a sovereign nation. It is a media organization that LAWFULLY publishes documents it collects from whistle blowers. Maybe try comparing apples with apples next time.

Tell me what "US regulations" does it not abide by? Why does every organization need to be "Pro USA" and support US interests? You're not making any sense and are just throwing around shit about "not having a legal system" and "doesn't comply with US regulations" and hoping maybe one of your inept talking points will stick.

This right here is incredible. It's up to the US to hold itself accountable? Isn't that a lot like having the wolf guarding the hen house?

Like your entire incoherent and poorly thought out post, this makes no sense. File a lawsuit for what exactly? Without wikileaks acting as a watchdog, the U.S. government would have covered everything that was really going on in Iraq and elsewhere. Without wikileaks, a lawsuit would not be helpful since the plaintiff would have no grounds to sue and the government would continue to be held unaccountable by the general public.

In summary, this libtard thinks the U.S. is a criminal nation that needs fags like Assange to heroically expose the locations of cobalt mines in Congo.

And here's a newsflash, 'tard: Wikileaks is not innocently "collecting" documents from "whistleblowers" as you so dishonestly put it. They're taking classified documents that were ILLEGALLY obtained and publishing national security secrets that put lives at risk. In fact, per Assange's own admission, he's already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of lives in Africa when he released there. Both of those actions are crimes and I hope Assange gets tenderly butt-loved in jail.

What mind-boggling revelation has come out of these oh-so-brave leaks that Assange published? Hillary's a weirdo? The Saudis hate us? We don't like Sarkozy? Wow, thank HEAVENS we have heroes like Assange to bring this information to our attention.

 

[cougarclaws]

WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security - CNN.com

this is inexcusable. FUCK. THIS. GUY.

 

[Rexibit]

And here's a newsflash, 'tard: Wikileaks is not innocently "collecting" documents from "whistleblowers" as you so dishonestly put it. They're taking classified documents that were ILLEGALLY obtained and publishing national security secrets that put lives at risk.

Wikileaks is only a symptom of the problem, not the source. People are forgetting that it's not Assange that's going out and gnabbing these documents, it's people that are trusted government employees or hackers that are.

If it weren't happening at Wikileaks, it'd be "sources" leaking information to the press for them to publish.

If you want to fix this problem, focus on the people working for the government that have access and fire and prosecute those publishing classified information to Wikileaks. Hell, pay off Assange to help the governments prosecute them.

In reality, most informants are just spreading information that they feel will help out something that's wrong with the government so that it gets fixed, such as a cover up. Yes, some things do pose a security risk, but there are many other instances where something got fixed for being outed. It's the same reason people have been outing stuff to the press for years.

 

[nvanprooyen]

WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security - CNN.com

this is inexcusable. FUCK. THIS. GUY.

I don't get how this release is in line with what Wikileaks mission is supposed to be about. It serves no other purpose but to threaten the security of our country and it endangers civilian lives. I was sort of on the fence with the whole thing, not anymore.

 

[JakeStratham]

I don't get how this release is in line with what Wikileaks mission is supposed to be about.

I believe his stated mission is to encourage/force "total transparency."

Disclaimer: I have not read the linked piece, nor have I read the CNN article linked by cougarclaws.

 

[hellblazer]

This summer, CNN ran a report quoting a Pentagon official who explained how PFC Manning downloaded and leaked the classified information. The article says:

The Pentagon official said investigators now believe Manning logged into a system called the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, which essentially provides military members who have appropriate security clearances access to classified e-mails and the military’s classified internet system. But the official emphasized passwords and other control measures such as physical access are needed to log onto specific systems that provide information classified at the highest levels.

I couldn’t tell you what SIPRNet is, and nothing jumps out to me as odd in that paragraph (except for maybe the last sentence). But when X read it, he couldn’t e-mail me fast enough. According to him, what’s been reported above is simply impossible (again, the “quotes” have been changed/paraphrased to protect X’s identity):

Jon, this is crazy. Let me break this down for you. SIPRNet is a network owned and operated by the Department of Defense. In short, every military branch has its own intelligence organizations (except for the Marines because it is technically part of the Navy, so it uses the Navy’s systems).
Anyway, SIPRNet is a not connected to the Department of State’s systems: it’s separate. PFC Manning wouldn’t have been able to access the Department of State information via SIPRNet — he just couldn’t. I‘ll leave it at that because I can’t give more information.

X included a link to a site that explains SIPRNet and seems to back up his claims. It blew me away. Here’s what it says in part:

The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) is the Department of Defense’s largest network for the exchange of classified information and messages at the SECRET level. It supports the Global Command and Control System, the Defense Message System, and numerous other classified warfighting and planning applications. Although the SIPRNET uses the same communications procedures as the Internet, it has dedicated and encrypted lines that are separate from all other communications systems.

-------------------------------------

In other words, someone's lying. Let's all watch now how the Obama administration "responds" to these "leaks".

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." - Rahm Emmanuel

 

[identity_00]

He'll be in they system by the end of the week. Banks are locking up the funds. Mastercard just booted him today. 61k in his paypal account - gone.

He is expected to appear in UK court tomm. My bet is bail will be denied or it will be to high for him to even think about being released in the next few days.

 

[cougarclaws]

lol @ "both are roishare" tag

 

[advive]

A question for all of you saying he should be jailed.

If you came across let's say Chinese, Iranian or Russian secrets and posted them online, do you think you should be extradited as an American citizen to one of those countries to face their courts?