63 replies to this topic

[jeremx]

why i back it: http://www.amnesty.o...emen-2010-12-01

[Jacki O.]

I don't really see how a public case against this guy for rape means the "secret police" are after him.

Just because the guys pissed off the government does not mean he can't also be a scumbag.

Frankly I find his claim that everything he released falls under "freedom of the press" comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church's claim that harassing people at funerals falls under "freedom of speech".

no one's saying he can't be a scumbag. it just seems a little (ok a lot) suspicious that some western governments are starting to accuse this guy of being anti-american, a terrorist, etc. and now he's wanted for rape. Wikileaks provides all sorts of documents - government and otherwise - on it's website. but it release some big US gov docs (the iraq war diaries, diplomatic cables on the middle east) and all the sudden he's enemy of the state.

and how is releasing secrete government documents that reveal diplomatic and governmental intentions and diaries comparable to calling people "fags" at funerals?

true that both are hiding under the "free speech" argument (in the U.S. at least) but the intentions of each party are vastly different. One is to harrass and intimidate (and the US courts upheld their claim that they can do that under the 1st amendment). The other is to release documents on the internet, something that our government is claiming is espionage and an act of terrorism.

and honestly - they both can claim that free speech right under US law. So what? So can nazis, so can anarchists, so can sarah palin, so can glen beck, so can you and I.

[MrAwesome]

no one's saying he can't be a scumbag. it just seems a little (ok a lot) suspicious that some western governments are starting to accuse this guy of being anti-american, a terrorist, etc. and now he's wanted for rape. Wikileaks provides all sorts of documents - government and otherwise - on it's website. but it release some big US gov docs (the iraq war diaries, diplomatic cables on the middle east) and all the sudden he's enemy of the state.

and how is releasing secrete government documents that reveal diplomatic and governmental intentions and diaries comparable to calling people "fags" at funerals?

true that both are hiding under the "free speech" argument (in the U.S. at least) but the intentions of each party are vastly different. One is to harrass and intimidate (and the US courts upheld their claim that they can do that under the 1st amendment). The other is to release documents on the internet, something that our government is claiming is espionage and an act of terrorism.

and honestly - they both can claim that free speech right under US law. So what? So can nazis, so can anarchists, so can sarah palin, so can glen beck, so can you and I.

Releasing secret diplomatic documents for the United States, or any other country for that matter, can be seriously damaging to foreign policy as most of our diplomats must walk a fine line when meeting with other nations. One example is how they revealed that several Middle Eastern heads of state have been urging the US to launch a military strike against Iran. This could give Iran the impression that we could be planning such a strike. That's why I don't consider it to fall under the protection of free press. I can see how someone would argue how it would, I just don't think it does.

The same way nazis, anarchists and Glenn Beck have the right to go out and say whatever the hell they want due to free speech but when the WBC targets and individual then follows and harasses them I don't consider that to be protected speech. I get the argument they try to make, but I still don't think it qualifies as protected speech.

As for the rape case, this guy has been pissing off lots of western governments for a few years now. If they were going to "silence" him they probably would have gone Alexander Litvinenko on his ass already.

[Jacki O.]

no one's saying he can't be a scumbag. it just seems a little (ok a lot) suspicious that some western governments are starting to accuse this guy of being anti-american, a terrorist, etc. and now he's wanted for rape. Wikileaks provides all sorts of documents - government and otherwise - on it's website. but it release some big US gov docs (the iraq war diaries, diplomatic cables on the middle east) and all the sudden he's enemy of the state.

and how is releasing secrete government documents that reveal diplomatic and governmental intentions and diaries comparable to calling people "fags" at funerals?

true that both are hiding under the "free speech" argument (in the U.S. at least) but the intentions of each party are vastly different. One is to harrass and intimidate (and the US courts upheld their claim that they can do that under the 1st amendment). The other is to release documents on the internet, something that our government is claiming is espionage and an act of terrorism.

and honestly - they both can claim that free speech right under US law. So what? So can nazis, so can anarchists, so can sarah palin, so can glen beck, so can you and I.

Releasing secret diplomatic documents for the United States, or any other country for that matter, can be seriously damaging to foreign policy as most of our diplomats must walk a fine line when meeting with other nations. One example is how they revealed that several Middle Eastern heads of state have been urging the US to launch a military strike against Iran. This could give Iran the impression that we could be planning such a strike. That's why I don't consider it to fall under the protection of free press. I can see how someone would argue how it would, I just don't think it does.

The same way nazis, anarchists and Glenn Beck have the right to go out and say whatever the hell they want due to free speech but when the WBC targets and individual then follows and harasses them I don't consider that to be protected speech. I get the argument they try to make, but I still don't think it qualifies as protected speech.

As for the rape case, this guy has been pissing off lots of western governments for a few years now. If they were going to "silence" him they probably would have gone Alexander Litvinenko on his ass already.

if our government is acting in the best interest of it's citizens then they shouldnt have to worry about secret documents getting leaked (as long as those documents aren't putting us agents in harm's way - which they are not)

and killing someone who releases damaging information would only make them a martyr, why not discredit him completely by charging him with rape or molestation.

no one is going to want to back a rapist, but everyone is going to cry foul if the dude winds up murdered...

[differently biotic]

... no one is going to want to back a rapist ...

unless you are roman polanski ...

[Jacki O.]

... no one is going to want to back a rapist ...

unless you are roman polanski ...

heyo!

well played...

[RustyShackleford]

I don't really see how a public case against this guy for rape means the "secret police" are after him.

Just because the guys pissed off the government does not mean he can't also be a scumbag.

Frankly I find his claim that everything he released falls under "freedom of the press" comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church's claim that harassing people at funerals falls under "freedom of speech".

The Swedish authorities were not going to charge him and said he wasn't a suspect then changed their mind and reopened the case. It's sounds suspicious to me, not that it can't be true.

And there is alot of evidence of our govt, putting immense pressure on others to bend their legal system to our will.

Here's one from the recently released leaks
Cables: U.S. Tried to Thwart Spanish Probes; U.K. Assured Bush Admin over Iraq Inquiry

from democracy now:
http://www.democracy...al_murder_video

Revelations continue to emerge from the massive trove of diplomatic cables released by the whisteblower website WikiLeaks. The latest disclosures reveal U.S. officials tried to influence Spanish prosecutors and government officials to drop court investigations into torture at Guantánamo Bay, CIA extraordinary rendition flights, and the 2003 killing of a Spanish journalist by U.S. troops in Iraq. The documents also show the Bush administration was assured they would be shielded from scrutiny at British government inquiry into the Iraq war.

Two months before the Chilcot inquiry opened in November 2009, the U.S. embassy in London reported that a top British official had vowed Britain would "put measures in place to protect [U.S.] interests" during the proceedings. The British official was quoted saying that while the Iraq war seemed no longer to be a major issue in the United States, he predicted there would be a "feeding frenzy" once the inquiry began.

[Tony]

if our government is acting in the best interest of it's citizens then they shouldnt have to worry about secret documents getting leaked.

false.

if the government deems a document should be classified because if it leaked it would pose a threat to security, then it should be classified. i realize that's a pie in the sky stance, and it could absolutely be abused, but i do not want any of our internal secret shit getting leaked so that iran can read it.

[MrAwesome]

if our government is acting in the best interest of it's citizens then they shouldnt have to worry about secret documents getting leaked (as long as those documents aren't putting us agents in harm's way - which they are not)

and killing someone who releases damaging information would only make them a martyr, why not discredit him completely by charging him with rape or molestation.

no one is going to want to back a rapist, but everyone is going to cry foul if the dude winds up murdered...

1. see Tony's answer.

2. Just because he was discredited doesn't mean people aren't going to back him again. Hell, Matthew Broderick fucking killed some people and he is still making movies. It sucks but in a few months people really are not going to care if this guy raped someone. If they really wanted to discredit him then they would have claimed the documents he released were forged, that way people would be less interested in what wikileaks puts out and eventually his site would just go away.

[RustyShackleford]

Assange says that governments need to keep some things secret. (below at about 8mins).
My point is that they are not just releasing things without consideration of the content. There is a journalistic intent and attempts made to redact sensitive information about agents in the field. They have even offered to have the US help redact names and sensitive details.

The rape charge just muddies the water and affects the media coverage of the actual revelations about what the world's governments are up. Almost every story about the leaks makes some reference to it.

!

[fatguyaz]

Matthew Broderick killed somebody?

[Tony]

Matthew Broderick killed somebody?

yeah, i know! wtf?

[differently biotic]

he was involved in a car crash. A mother and daughter were killed in it.

[jeremx]

didn't glenn beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

[fatguyaz]

he was involved in a car crash. A mother and daughter were killed in it.

Let this be a lesson to you all. Don't skip school.