PDA

View Full Version : Julian Assange on 60 Minutes


✡✡ JOSHUA ✡✡
01-30-2011, 09:39 PM
Part 1

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DzC9invn4Ko" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOSEgbg-6uA

OBF1
01-30-2011, 09:43 PM
What team does he play for???

baja
01-30-2011, 10:05 PM
He was very impressive - a peoples hero.

tsiguy96
01-30-2011, 10:07 PM
quick recap por favor

baja
01-30-2011, 10:08 PM
watch the linked video

tsiguy96
01-30-2011, 10:10 PM
theres nothing quick about a 2 part 30 minute video. got a physiology test tomorrow, doubt i will be watching it anytime soon :D

baja
01-30-2011, 10:12 PM
theres nothing quick about a 2 part 30 minute video. got a physiology test tomorrow, doubt i will be watching it anytime soon :D

Sometimes a recap just does not do the situation justice this is one of those times.

Tombstone RJ
01-30-2011, 10:42 PM
he's playing with fire and then he's suprised about getting burned. the idea behind wikileaks is fine, even noble to some extent, but when does it become less about exposing injustice and more about putting people's lives in jeopardy? There's always gonna be whistle blowers, I just hope wikileaks does due diligence on the information before it casts said info. out onto the internet. I wonder how they know if the info. they receive is legit or if it's just fiction created by someone with an axe to grind...

either way, it was only a matter of time before a site like wikileaks became available to the public. With all the info. available on the internet, it's hard to keep anything truly secret, especially when information is more or less all connected via the web. I'm not really sure the US State Department has a real case against wikileaks when US secrets can be dumped out to a site like wikileaks. It's really a strange situation for all parties involved. That being said Assange should know he's teetering on iminent death by publishing this type of info...

baja
01-30-2011, 10:44 PM
he's playing with fire and then he's suprised about getting burned. the idea behind wikileaks is fine, even noble to some extent, but when does it become less about exposing injustice and more about putting people's lives in jeopardy? There's always gonna be whistle blowers, I just hope wikileaks does due diligence on the information before it casts said info. out onto the internet. I wonder how they know if the info. they receive is legit or if it's just fiction created by someone with an axe to grind...

either way, it was only a matter of time before a site like wikileaks became available to the public. With all the info. available on the internet, it's hard to keep anything truly secret, especially when information is more or less all connected via the web. I'm not really sure the US State Department has a real case against wikileaks when US secrets can be dumped out to a site like wikileaks. It's really a strange situation for all parties involved. That being said Arsange know he's teetering on iminent death by publishing this type of info...

You would find the video informative.

Tombstone RJ
01-30-2011, 10:47 PM
You would find the video informative.

I watched the video. Hence, my comments.

Ray_Lewis'_Victim
01-30-2011, 10:59 PM
I watched the video. Hence, my comments.

I agree with some of your take, but I don't think he's surprised at all about what's happened to him. Sounds like he's disappointed that the US govt was so quick to toss out the first amendment to try to come after him, but not surprised.

They do try pretty hard to verify that their info is accurate, though in the case of the war logs/cablegate I think its pretty clear they're genuine (Seriously who has time to make up thousands of diplomatic cables or field reports?). They also now do a pretty good job of harm minimization. They don't publish anything wholesale without going through it and redacting names/addresses, and there are no credible reports of anyone being harmed as a result of these leaks (Bradley Manning aside).

Whatever happens to Wikileaks is relatively unimportant, as already similar services are popping up (Al Jazeera just set one up, and a former wikileaks guy started Openleaks). Naive people of the world are going to have a hard time pretending that everything their government/corporation/whatever does is completely legal/moral.

Tombstone RJ
01-30-2011, 11:12 PM
I agree with some of your take, but I don't think he's surprised at all about what's happened to him. Sounds like he's disappointed that the US govt was so quick to toss out the first amendment to try to come after him, but not surprised.

They do try pretty hard to verify that their info is accurate, though in the case of the war logs/cablegate I think its pretty clear they're genuine (Seriously who has time to make up thousands of diplomatic cables or field reports?). They also now do a pretty good job of harm minimization. They don't publish anything wholesale without going through it and redacting names/addresses, and there are no credible reports of anyone being harmed as a result of these leaks (Bradley Manning aside).

Whatever happens to Wikileaks is relatively unimportant, as already similar services are popping up (Al Jazeera just set one up, and a former wikileaks guy started Openleaks). Naive people of the world are going to have a hard time pretending that everything their government/corporation/whatever does is completely legal/moral.

Its also ironic that Assange talks about the first amendment. I believe the US Constitution and Bill or Rights were written with the American People in mind, and protecting the citizens of the US from tyranny. I really don't think the Founding Fathers had a foreign publisher in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. Again, I think this is uncharted waters for the US State Department and all parties involved.

extralife
01-31-2011, 12:32 AM
if you publish material in the united states you are not a foreign publisher. it would be like prosecuting people affiliated with The Guardian against the first amendment because they are located in England. preposterous.

Ratboy
01-31-2011, 01:51 AM
He was very impressive - a peoples hero.

I would teabag him with ink on my balls.

elsid13
01-31-2011, 02:32 AM
I would teabag him with ink on my balls.

Rep

srphoenix
01-31-2011, 05:48 AM
there is nothing noble about spreading America's information and secret documents to the world without any focus on where they go. All that does is harm those in public service and hurt our country's aims and goals across the world.

If he wants to help our country in some way with that information, take it to our government and let them know their information security sucks and that he as a worthless hack was able to gain access to it.

McDman
01-31-2011, 05:53 AM
Too bad the interviewer didn't just take out a gun and pop him real quick. The guy is a piece of sh*t.

Archer81
01-31-2011, 06:08 AM
What comes around goes around. Dude will get his.

Smarmy little ****.

:Broncos:

baja
01-31-2011, 06:16 AM
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037118_2037146,00.html

Julian Assange - runner up for Time Magazine man of the year.

Archer81
01-31-2011, 06:17 AM
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037118_2037146,00.html

Julian Assange - runner up for Time Magazine man of the year.


Being on the cover of Time is not an honor. They named Hitler man of the year.


:Broncos:

baja
01-31-2011, 06:31 AM
I understand that but there is an article attached.

Regardless of what you think of the man he has provided the people of the world with a great tool. The threat alone of exposure of information will make governments think twice about how they conduct themselves. We are not being informed today like we were in the past. Main stream media is now controlled by a small group of people that are feeding you their agenda. What WikiLeaks does is provide the information needed to make an informed opinion about an event or situation. All evil things happen in secrecy. Just the threat of possible exposure is very powerful. We owe Julian Assange a great debt. "The truth shall set you free".

Archer81
01-31-2011, 06:39 AM
I understand that but there is an article attached.

Regardless of what you think of the man he has provided the people of the world with a great tool. The threat alone of exposure of information will make governments think twice about how they conduct themselves. We are not being informed today like we were in the past. Main stream media is now controlled by a small group of people that are feeding you their agenda. What WikiLeaks does is provide the information needed to make an informed opinion about an event or situation. All evil things happen in secrecy. Just the threat of possible exposure is very powerful. We owe Julian Assange a great debt. "The truth shall set you free".


Bloggers do the same thing without breaking laws to do it. The internet is the tool. Assange is just a nitwit with a romantic ideal of being a hero.

:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
01-31-2011, 06:53 AM
I understand that but there is an article attached.

Regardless of what you think of the man he has provided the people of the world with a great tool. The threat alone of exposure of information will make governments think twice about how they conduct themselves. We are not being informed today like we were in the past. Main stream media is now controlled by a small group of people that are feeding you their agenda. What WikiLeaks does is provide the information needed to make an informed opinion about an event or situation. All evil things happen in secrecy. Just the threat of possible exposure is very powerful. We owe Julian Assange a great debt. "The truth shall set you free".

yeah...think twice with more regulation, laws, and security to protect "the children". Its a good thing and also a very bad thing. I think that the people that will ultimately pay are the people.

baja
01-31-2011, 06:58 AM
Bloggers do the same thing without breaking laws to do it. The internet is the tool. Assange is just a nitwit with a romantic ideal of being a hero.

:Broncos:

He sure didn't come across that way in his first ever in depth (relatively) interview on 60 minutes.

Difference between bloggers and WikiLeaks is bloggers came be easily shut down while WikiLeaks uses networks and encryption tools than make it impossible to shut WikiLeaks down and if they are some how shut down they have shared the technology so others can continue. Why is everyone so afraid of exposing the world governing body's dirty secrets. Isn't that what our founding fathers advocated ? We have a responsibility to monitor our government and WikiLeaks gives the individual a platform to do that. WikiLeaks is first and foremost a publisher of information. This gives every person the power to get their truth out on a global scale. How can this not be a good thing.

lostknight
01-31-2011, 07:01 AM
The hypocracy about Wikileaks is amazing. Witness the constant threats the organization issues to leak bad press about anyone who challenges them. Whoever dares to point out that the organization is dicey, People can and have died because of Wikileaks disclosures.

Sometimes, it's a good thing to get some sunshine on things. But the wikileaks in the US have been mostly disappointing, very little that isn't in the press to someone who pays intention and intended to embarrass rather then shed any new light on things . But to publish a list of the "10 sites if destroyed would hurt the US the most" is petty and dangerous. Likewise, the public disclosure of the fact that the Middle East politicians are saying one thing of Israel and Iran in public, and quite a different set in private may feel good, but it's a contribution to the riots in Tunisia and Egypt. If thoose riots end with Democratic regimes great. But the vast majority of the time, revolts in the middle east result in groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood taking the reigns.

What they are doing is leading to people's deaths.

baja
01-31-2011, 07:02 AM
The hypocracy about Wikileaks is amazing. Witness the constant threats the organization issues to leak bad press about anyone who challenges them. People can and have died because of Wikileaks disclosures.

Sometimes, it's a good thing to get some sunshine on things. Most of the time perhaps. But what they are doing is leading to people's deaths.

Please show some proof of that.

baja
01-31-2011, 07:05 AM
Julian Assange gets my vote for the Noble Peace Prize.

lostknight
01-31-2011, 07:08 AM
Please show some proof of that.

Wikileaks threatened banks with disclosure when Banks complied with international law and frooze their assets.

I know you have a crush on them, but don't let it blind you.

lostknight
01-31-2011, 07:09 AM
Julian Assange gets my vote for the Noble Peace Prize.

Fitting, given that Nobel's wealth came from the invention led to the death of hundreds of millions.

Haroldthebarrel
01-31-2011, 07:16 AM
Fitting, given that Nobel's wealth came from the invention led to the death of hundreds of millions.

The invention of dynamite lead to the deaths of houndreds of millions?
That is what you are saying right?

NhocCuteGirlz
01-31-2011, 07:19 AM
What team does he play forimages/smilies/huh.gif
__________________

baja
01-31-2011, 07:38 AM
Wikileaks threatened banks with disclosure when Banks complied with international law and frooze their assets.

I know you have a crush on them, but don't let it blind you.

You said people lost their lives because of WikiLeaks. That is one hell of an accusation you should be able to prove that.

Powerful greedy bankers have caused much of the global financial crisis you aren't pissed off at that? You are not interested in the truth about how the financial crisis came about? I for one would love to see the dirty secrets of fraud and deception perpetrated on the world by the greedy bankers exposed to the light of the day. Assange has brought the full wrath of the power brokers of the world down on him ask yourself why that is. Could it be they fear what he is offering, a global outlet for whistleblowers?

baja
01-31-2011, 07:41 AM
What was the first act of the power in Egypt to the insurrection of the people? They shut down the Internet.

DrFate
01-31-2011, 07:45 AM
What was the first act of the power in Egypt to the insurrection of the people? They shut down the Internet.

And the Feds are damned determined to do the same thing here (give themselves a legal justification to install the Internet kill switch)

baja
01-31-2011, 07:47 AM
And the Feds are damned determined to do the same thing here (give themselves a legal justification to install the Internet kill switch)

Do you think they don't have that "kill switch" now.

Garcia Bronco
01-31-2011, 07:49 AM
And the Feds are damned determined to do the same thing here (give themselves a legal justification to install the Internet kill switch)

exactly. Sometimes its bad busniness to stir the hornets nest.

baja
01-31-2011, 07:49 AM
The day the Internet goes black you better hope you have a nice garden growing is some rural place.

baja
01-31-2011, 07:50 AM
exactly. Sometimes its bad busniness to stir the hornets nest.

I can not tell you how disappointed I am to read that statement Garcia.

That is what the good German people did in the 1930's

"They are only killing the Jews. Don't rock the boat or they might turn on us".

DrFate
01-31-2011, 07:53 AM
Do you think they don't have that "kill switch" now.

It's possible, I suppose. If they do, I wonder why they are constantly trying to push through legislation like this:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/as-egypt-goes-offline-us-gets-internet-kill-switch-bill-ready-20110131-1aah3.html

If they have it, are they simply trying to find a justification for it, should it become public knowledge?

tsiguy96
01-31-2011, 08:02 AM
just as a note, the people who think this guy is a monster probably have little care for what this country was founded on. the government was designed to be representative of the people, they work for US.

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
Government from falling into error."

baja
01-31-2011, 08:03 AM
It's possible, I suppose. If they do, I wonder why they are constantly trying to push through legislation like this:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/as-egypt-goes-offline-us-gets-internet-kill-switch-bill-ready-20110131-1aah3.html

If they have it, are they simply trying to find a justification for it, should it become public knowledge?

My thinking is if it gets to the point where shutting down the Internet looks like the best option they will not need permission (a law) to do it.

Mile High Shack
01-31-2011, 08:03 AM
Do you think they don't have that "kill switch" now.

they don't, Lieberman and what's her face from KS keep trying to put that bill forward

the government wants it though, so bad, but hopefully it never happens

DrFate
01-31-2011, 08:05 AM
My thinking is if it gets to the point where shutting down the Internet looks like the best option they will not need permission (a law) to do it.

I don't disagree - but my question remains: What is their motivation for trying to pass such a law?

Kaylore
01-31-2011, 08:09 AM
He's basically a terrorist. I hope they annihilate him.

Obushma
01-31-2011, 08:12 AM
Julian Assange gets my vote for the Noble Peace Prize.

Like the Polock's say, Rep.

God bless people who actually care about the first amendment in this country, otherwise it would be full of Obama's and Bush's

Garcia Bronco
01-31-2011, 08:15 AM
My thinking is if it gets to the point where shutting down the Internet looks like the best option they will not need permission (a law) to do it.

They can't here. They would have to pass a law to do it to put in the infrastructure to complete the task.

Garcia Bronco
01-31-2011, 08:17 AM
I can not tell you how disappointed I am to read that statement Garcia.

That is what the good German people did in the 1930's

"They are only killing the Jews. Don't rock the boat or they might turn on us".

Nooo. It's not even the samething.

Tombstone RJ
01-31-2011, 08:17 AM
Julian Assange gets my vote for the Noble Peace Prize.

I think you have lost all perspective (actually, I know you have lost it because you continually tell everyone how great you are). Assange may have opened Pandora's Box, and there's no peace in that, only chaos.

Again, the reasoning behind wikileaks is good but the application is lacking. The road to hell is pathed with good intentions.

I know you don't know what I'm talking about because you're so great and all. But for the rest of the world, Assange may be more of a pariah than a saint.

Phantom
01-31-2011, 08:41 AM
No surprise ... the chicken littles anoint this smug opportunist. Then you have 'the rest' of humanity that see this punk for what he is. No worries history is just repeating itself. This is nothing new, just a new medium.

Obushma
01-31-2011, 08:50 AM
He's basically a terrorist. I hope they annihilate him.

The US government felt the same way about Mormonism at one time.

baja
01-31-2011, 08:51 AM
I don't disagree - but my question remains: What is their motivation for trying to pass such a law?

Maybe they would like us to feel safe (false sense of security) that they can't shut it down without a law.

willyallthewei
01-31-2011, 08:54 AM
You can't stop the principle that Wikileaks builds on. Jail this guy, and another 3 will pop up.

baja
01-31-2011, 08:55 AM
I think you have lost all perspective (actually, I know you have lost it because you continually tell everyone how great you are). Assange may have opened Pandora's Box, and there's no peace in that, only chaos.

Again, the reasoning behind wikileaks is good but the application is lacking. The road to hell is pathed with good intentions.

I know you don't know what I'm talking about because you're so great and all. But for the rest of the world, Assange may be more of a pariah than a saint.

I am great and you would be selling yourself short if you see yourself as less than great.

willyallthewei
01-31-2011, 08:57 AM
You said people lost their lives because of WikiLeaks. That is one hell of an accusation you should be able to prove that.

Powerful greedy bankers have caused much of the global financial crisis you aren't pissed off at that? You are not interested in the truth about how the financial crisis came about? I for one would love to see the dirty secrets of fraud and deception perpetrated on the world by the greedy bankers exposed to the light of the day. Assange has brought the full wrath of the power brokers of the world down on him ask yourself why that is. Could it be they fear what he is offering, a global outlet for whistleblowers?

You think this guy is some ****ing information liberator?

If there's one thing that work in the area has taught me, there is no such thing as Non-profit. These 'activists' are as power hungry as the greedy bankers you think to be the root of all evil.

He holds a different kind of power - information, and he can convert that currency into anything he wants, he's got the world by the balls.

baja
01-31-2011, 08:57 AM
He's basically a terrorist. I hope they annihilate him.

I see lots of posts like this but not one outlining just what WikiLeaks has done to be considered a terrorist. You got one?

Tombstone RJ
01-31-2011, 08:59 AM
You can't stop the principle that Wikileaks builds on. Jail this guy, and another 3 will pop up.

yep. Also, these sites can start spewing a lot of dissinformation if they want. Not all of these sites will be as noble in their intentions as Assange. Some of these sites will just want to reak havoc.

Its so funny Al Jazeera is doing this stuff now. That is one news organization that is completely biased and totally unreliable. But, they are doing it too now, whoohoo!

Tombstone RJ
01-31-2011, 09:01 AM
I am great and you would be selling yourself short if you see yourself as less than great.

let's just say we have different focus's on life. :kiss:

willyallthewei
01-31-2011, 09:06 AM
I see lots of posts like this but not one outlining just what WikiLeaks has done to be considered a terrorist. You got one?

Terrorism is an evolving concept. I think under a lot of definitions this group doesn't fit, but they have shown their capacity and willingness to threaten sovereignty, and for some people, i guess that's enough.

HorseHead
01-31-2011, 09:16 AM
about an 8.5 on the creepy meter....

didn't he play a bad guy in a "Lethal Weapon" movie? Maybe it was "Die Hard"?...

lostknight
01-31-2011, 09:18 AM
You said people lost their lives because of WikiLeaks. That is one hell of an accusation you should be able to prove that.

Sure, the first batch of releases contained the names of informants against the Taleban in Afghanistan, and the name of sources in Iraq. According to both the BBC and guardian, some people were killed because their name was in there.


Powerful greedy bankers have caused much of the global financial crisis you aren't pissed off at that?


That's not what this is about. What this is about is that when thoose banks acted in concert with Law and Order, Wikileaks suddenly announced that they had all sorts of dark secrets that they would reveal if the banks didn't unfreeze their assets. That's a perfect example of using knowledge as a weapon.

You are not interested in the truth about how the financial crisis came about?


Actually I am, which I why I read all sorts of very well documented books by some of the best writers of the day - such as Too big to fail, and conspiracy of fools.

lostknight
01-31-2011, 09:20 AM
I can not tell you how disappointed I am to read that statement Garcia.

That is what the good German people did in the 1930's

"They are only killing the Jews. Don't rock the boat or they might turn on us".

I invoke Goodwin's law.

Beantown Bronco
01-31-2011, 09:31 AM
about an 8.5 on the creepy meter....

didn't he play a bad guy in a "Lethal Weapon" movie? Maybe it was "Die Hard"?...

For me, he's a dead ringer of the creepy villain from the unofficial James Bond movie: "Never Say Never Again"

go to 1:37

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HlIXXkBvUUE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HlIXXkBvUUE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Hulamau
01-31-2011, 09:58 AM
Wikileaks threatened banks with disclosure when Banks complied with international law and frooze their assets.

I know you have a crush on them, but don't let it blind you.

Actually the bank leaks they are going to publish have been collected and gotten ready for release long before Mastercard, Visa and Paypal cut him off and before the cablegate leaks

Like him or not he has an impressive clarity in expressing his vision.

ghwk
01-31-2011, 10:04 AM
I would teabag him with ink on my balls.

I don't think I'd pay to see that but if it were on youtube I might take a look....:rofl:

ghwk
01-31-2011, 10:11 AM
Actually the bank leaks they are going to publish have been collected and gotten ready for release long before Mastercard, Visa and Paypal cut him off and before the cablegate leaks

Like him or not he has an impressive clarity in expressing his vision.

I am more interested in this stuff than I am in the govt. leaks.

Rascal
01-31-2011, 10:19 AM
The hypocracy about Wikileaks is amazing. Witness the constant threats the organization issues to leak bad press about anyone who challenges them. Whoever dares to point out that the organization is dicey, People can and have died because of Wikileaks disclosures.

Link?

extralife
01-31-2011, 11:35 AM
terrorism is a buzz word, the US government does not get to set the parameters for checking itself, wikileaks is the only real journalism with mainstream push and access to real information (of course you all forgot what real journalism was because you've had too many years of fake journalists telling you that real journalism is about protecting the interests of what it reports on), and there is no possible way to spin wikileaks as "bad" without outing yourself as dogmatic at best and totalitarian at worst. it's a non story. we are living in a time where our federal government is publicly attempting to eliminate an organization whose goals are those outlined in the first amendment, and which is doing nothing but informing the citizenry of criminal activity and the means and methods a government paid for and supported by us goes about its business--and most of the country wants the guy dead. we have lost. but of course you can pretend you care about freedoms whenever the political party you do not "support" is currently in power.

Kaylore
01-31-2011, 11:47 AM
I see lots of posts like this but not one outlining just what WikiLeaks has done to be considered a terrorist. You got one?

How about they pick on free nations where there is more available information to leak because we aren't as strict? All it serves is to damage our diplomacy and intelligence? Or better, he's a freaking spy leaking classified information?

You know the irony? Free countries like US will take a hit while the dictatorships that use extreme measures to protect their information don't have things leaked, both because their laws are draconian and because the leakers fear their reprisals. The US and other countries will become more draconian in turn and you a-holes who champion this is some sort of liberating experience are just making a case for censorship and totalitarianism.

Hero my ass.

Tombstone RJ
01-31-2011, 12:04 PM
terrorism is a buzz word, the US government does not get to set the parameters for checking itself, wikileaks is the only real journalism with mainstream push and access to real information (of course you all forgot what real journalism was because you've had too many years of fake journalists telling you that real journalism is about protecting the interests of what it reports on), and there is no possible way to spin wikileaks as "bad" without outing yourself as dogmatic at best and totalitarian at worst. it's a non story. we are living in a time where our federal government is publicly attempting to eliminate an organization whose goals are those outlined in the first amendment, and which is doing nothing but informing the citizenry of criminal activity and the means and methods a government paid for and supported by us goes about its business--and most of the country wants the guy dead. we have lost. but of course you can pretend you care about freedoms whenever the political party you do not "support" is currently in power.

You're missing a very important point, and it's key to what is going on here: It used to be that viable and legitimate news agencies had editors who edited what was published or put out into or on the airwaves. They did this because they knew that certain information did not need to be released to the public. Unfortunately wikileaks and other sites like it do not follow basic news media guidlines.

Now, you can claim wikileaks is a just riding the first amendment but the fact is there's a lot more involved. There's ethical reasons why news media agencies have editors and producers that screen what is made public (yes, often times the news is slanted either to the right or left but this is why you get your information from more than one source). Now all of that is gone and wikileaks wants to hide behind the First Amendment.

Again, I can understand why wikileaks was set up (allows whistle blowers to have an voice) and that is fantastic. However, the difference between wikileaks and the NY Times is that the NY Times is held accountible for the information it publishes and the editors know this. There's some checks and balnces instilled into the way the NYT operates. This does not mean that the NY Times will sit on a story or not publish a story if they feel the public needs to know. What it means is the the NY Times has parameters around what they publish and what they don't publish and it's in the best interest of the paper and the public as to why they pick and choose what to publish and what NOT to publish.

Listen, I'm a huge proponent of the First Amendment, but I also know that many bad things can get deciminated because low-lifes are hiding behind the First Amendment (pornography, for example). It's a slippery slope.

But, wikileaks is forcing the US government's hand. I don't know if this is such a good thing...

extralife
01-31-2011, 12:08 PM
You're missing a very important point, and it's key to what is going on here: It used to be that viable and legitimate news agencies had editors who edited what was published or put out into or on the airwaves. They did this because they knew that certain information did not need to be released to the public. Unfortunately wikileaks and other sites like it do not follow basic news media guidlines.

wikileaks does this. in fact, they are now doing it through the most established channels imaginable: The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel. I am of the opinion that they probably should not be doing this--but they certainly are.

McDman
01-31-2011, 12:09 PM
It's amazing to me people can see this guy as some sort of hero.

Ask the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who helped us fight the Taliban. They just had their names released to the public, I'm sure they're thrilled. I'm sure some of the info this guy put out was with good intent, but too much of it is not ona need to know with the public.

Ray_Lewis'_Victim
01-31-2011, 12:13 PM
It's amazing to me people can see this guy as some sort of hero.

Ask the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who helped us fight the Taliban. They just had their names released to the public, I'm sure they're thrilled. I'm sure some of the info this guy put out was with good intent, but too much of it is not ona need to know with the public.

Let me know when you have a credible report that indicates that harm actually came to any of the people listed. Even the Pentagon admitted that they don't have any documented cases of people being targeted/killed because of these leaks.

Binkythefrog
01-31-2011, 12:21 PM
A couple things to add:

1. I have an issue with those who leaked the government documents, not Wikileaks. When you receive clearance in the federal government, you swear to protect certian information. Whether or not that information is appropriate for the public isn't for those people to decide. They made a promise and I truly believe that they should stick to their word. I'm shocked at how hard the media and others have come down on Wikileaks, but not the people who leaked the information (although I think they are treating Manning incredibly unfairly).

2. A lot of supporters believe that Wikileaks hasn't hurt anyone. There is little evidence to prove that people have been hurt, but just as little evidence that shows that people haven't been hurt. Many of these people operating in foreign countries may have been hurt, tortured, killed, we may never know because their lives are shrouded in secrecy.

3. The Guardian and the NYTimes have also published leaked cables and reported on them. Are they now to be hunted down like Assange? Free press is integral to our nation as it provides avenues of dissent and gives the people information required to make decisions as a demoncratic citizen. The distinction between leaker and "publisher" (as Assange put it) doesn't get enough thought in the media.

extralife
01-31-2011, 12:28 PM
About the whole "people being hurt" thing--that's a boogeyman propagated by people that don't actually care whether or not people are hurt. It's hard to prop up two wars for a decade or more with no goal and then claim you care about whether or not incidental people are hurt along the way. wikileaks exposes government practices that have lead and will lead to the deaths of thousands--if not more--of innocent people, as well as breaches in federally mandated protocol that result in the deaths of more. that's a fact. that information will save lives if we ever manage to shift the argument away from Assange and onto what he's actually reporting on. which will of course never happen, because that is not in the best interest of the federal government or the popular media--even if it is most definitely in the best interests of the American population.

Obushma
01-31-2011, 12:30 PM
It's amazing to me people can see this guy as some sort of hero.

Ask the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who helped us fight the Taliban. They just had their names released to the public, I'm sure they're thrilled. I'm sure some of the info this guy put out was with good intent, but too much of it is not ona need to know with the public.

:rofl:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WaiJtLrEwVU" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

We're the ones that made you.

Houshyamama
01-31-2011, 12:34 PM
I'd like to see him go after China or better yet, Venezuela. He seems anti-US. I'm all about whistle-blowing if there is a purpose behind it, but I am still undecided when it comes to his motivation.

extralife
01-31-2011, 12:38 PM
his motivation is irrelevant. what is relevant is the information being released.

Houshyamama
01-31-2011, 12:44 PM
his motivation is irrelevant. what is relevant is the information being released.

His motivation is irrelevant? That's very hopeful in my opinion.

extralife
01-31-2011, 12:52 PM
how could you possibly refute it? he isn't composing any statement or fitting information into a wider piece of work that he then presents to the public. he could very possibly be cherry picking certain information that accords with his worldview, but that is extremely unlikely given the massive volume of records released. and even if it were true--100% true, lets say--the documents still exist. they still speak for themselves. they are primary sources, and whatever they say or allude to is 100% real and irrefutable. you are quite literally advocating that we shoot the messenger. we are just so indoctrinated by a media whose primary goals are advancements of agendas and protection of their cultural values rather than the presentation and elucidation of facts that you cannot help but try to find the boogeyman hiding int he closet.

baja
01-31-2011, 01:17 PM
terrorism is a buzz word, the US government does not get to set the parameters for checking itself, wikileaks is the only real journalism with mainstream push and access to real information (of course you all forgot what real journalism was because you've had too many years of fake journalists telling you that real journalism is about protecting the interests of what it reports on), and there is no possible way to spin wikileaks as "bad" without outing yourself as dogmatic at best and totalitarian at worst. it's a non story. we are living in a time where our federal government is publicly attempting to eliminate an organization whose goals are those outlined in the first amendment, and which is doing nothing but informing the citizenry of criminal activity and the means and methods a government paid for and supported by us goes about its business--and most of the country wants the guy dead. we have lost. but of course you can pretend you care about freedoms whenever the political party you do not "support" is currently in power.

Good post!

This is the truth. We have lost. I am so dismayed to see the response here form some pretty bright posters. We should be grateful to WikiLeaks for the service they are doing for all the world. Scary that so many don't get it.

Archer81
01-31-2011, 01:21 PM
Good post!

This is the truth. We have lost. I am so dismayed to see the response here form some pretty bright posters. We should be grateful to WikiLeaks for the service they are doing for all the world. Scary that so many don't get it.


It would be interesting if there is a correlation between the protests/unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen and the wikileaks documents.

But hey, whatever. Assange is a hero. Yay nitwits.

:Broncos:

extralife
01-31-2011, 01:24 PM
so you think that democratic movements against authoritarian regimes are a bad thing?

and you live in America, correct?

baja
01-31-2011, 01:25 PM
<b>You're missing a very important point, and it's key to what is going on here: It used to be that viable and legitimate news agencies had editors who edited what was published or put out into or on the airwaves. They did this because they knew that certain information did not need to be released to the public. Unfortunately wikileaks and other sites like it do not follow basic news media guidlines. </b>

Now, you can claim wikileaks is a just riding the first amendment but the fact is there's a lot more involved. There's ethical reasons why news media agencies have editors and producers that screen what is made public (yes, often times the news is slanted either to the right or left but this is why you get your information from more than one source). Now all of that is gone and wikileaks wants to hide behind the First Amendment.

Again, I can understand why wikileaks was set up (allows whistle blowers to have an voice) and that is fantastic. However, the difference between wikileaks and the NY Times is that the NY Times is held accountible for the information it publishes and the editors know this. There's some checks and balnces instilled into the way the NYT operates. This does not mean that the NY Times will sit on a story or not publish a story if they feel the public needs to know. What it means is the the NY Times has parameters around what they publish and what they don't publish and it's in the best interest of the paper and the public as to why they pick and choose what to publish and what NOT to publish.

Listen, I'm a huge proponent of the First Amendment, but I also know that many bad things can get deciminated because low-lifes are hiding behind the First Amendment (pornography, for example). It's a slippery slope.

But, wikileaks is forcing the US government's hand. I don't know if this is such a good thing...

But they do edit. There were poor choices made early on and that is unfortunate. WikiLeaks is very careful to not out their sources (they better be if they want to continue) and they now remove names of people from the released information. They even offered to work with the Pentagon to ensure no information damaging to individuals or legal diplomatic negotiations did not get released and the Pentagon turned them down flat.

Beantown Bronco
01-31-2011, 01:26 PM
It would be interesting if there is a correlation between the protests/unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen and the wikileaks documents.

Because those places were all models of peace prior to the invention of the Internet, much less wikileaks.

Archer81
01-31-2011, 01:28 PM
so you think that democratic movements against authoritarian regimes are a bad thing?

and you live in America, correct?


Yes. That is exactly what I said.

Why is it that when people in Iran challenged Ahmedinijad or the Ukranians had their "orange" revolution there was no great call to support democracy? I find that odd.

Nothing is as it seems. Then again, the "opposition" leader in Egypt suddenly says the Muslim Brotherhood is not violent...Lebanese and Israelis would disagree, but whatever. If you think these protests in Egypt and Tunisia have anything to do with democracy then I dont know what to tell you.

:Broncos:

Archer81
01-31-2011, 01:29 PM
Because those places were all models of peace prior to the invention of the Internet, much less wikileaks.


All at the same time?


:Broncos:

bendog
01-31-2011, 01:40 PM
I think you can distinguish between an individual's private agenda and the general concept of using the internet to challange a state's ability to keep information from its citizens inorder to influence public opinion on various issues. Assange's a wierd cat, who has been ostracized by a lot of former supporters.

Obushma
01-31-2011, 01:56 PM
If you think these protests in Egypt and Tunisia have anything to do with democracy then I dont know what to tell you.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThvBJMzmSZI" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

extralife
01-31-2011, 01:58 PM
Yes. That is exactly what I said.

Why is it that when people in Iran challenged Ahmedinijad or the Ukranians had their "orange" revolution there was no great call to support democracy? I find that odd.

There was. I don't even get what you're implying.

Then again, the "opposition" leader in Egypt suddenly says the Muslim Brotherhood is not violent...Lebanese and Israelis would disagree, but whatever. If you think these protests in Egypt and Tunisia have anything to do with democracy then I dont know what to tell you.

Oh, so you're paranoid. A populist attempt to overthrow an authoritarian regime is a populist attempt to overthrow an authoritarian regime. Pretty simple. If it becomes co-opted by another authoritarian movement, then the attempt has failed. it does not mean the attempt was somehow illegitimate, nor would it be illegitimate simply because it is inconvenient to power players half a world away. democracy is inherently unstable. that is the price it pays. hell, that is its entire raison d'etre. if we actually operated under its principles, you'd know this. if the people of Egypt are silenced by a new oppressive order, then the people have failed in their democratic attempts. if they succeed and still decide that they no longer wish to be an Israeli puppet state, then that is their prerogative regardless of its effects on American imperial dictums.

Houshyamama
01-31-2011, 02:03 PM
how could you possibly refute it? he isn't composing any statement or fitting information into a wider piece of work that he then presents to the public. he could very possibly be cherry picking certain information that accords with his worldview, but that is extremely unlikely given the massive volume of records released. and even if it were true--100% true, lets say--the documents still exist. they still speak for themselves. they are primary sources, and whatever they say or allude to is 100% real and irrefutable. you are quite literally advocating that we shoot the messenger. we are just so indoctrinated by a media whose primary goals are advancements of agendas and protection of their cultural values rather than the presentation and elucidation of facts that you cannot help but try to find the boogeyman hiding int he closet.

I am not advocating shooting the messenger. I actually hold him in high regard.

My point is that Wikileaks holds an immense amount of unpublished material, covering many different institutions. How he orchestrates the publishing of that material could be affected by his motivations, if he has any. None of us know if he does or does not have an agenda, that is my point. To trust that he is morally pure and above his own personal world view is hopeful at best. It is a lot of power for one person to have in his hands. I guess my point is that I wish there were MORE Assanges.

extralife
01-31-2011, 02:20 PM
How he orchestrates the publishing of that material could be affected by his motivations

this is true and it formed the basis of many of my criticisms of wikileaks. it is, however, unavoidably true. I lament their decision to filter this information through traditional media outlets (all this really does is empower those outlets when the entire wikileaks paradigm should be threatening their ubiquity and failure to live up to their purpose), but the volume dictates that some form of decision be made. it may have been better to simply dump all of these documents on the populace at once. I'm not sure. arguments can and should be made both ways.

I suppose it is time to address Assange's actual worldview, one that is evinced entirely by wikileak's simple existence: he believes in the unvarnished check of authoritarian power and as such has an inherent distrust of the motivations and aims of those in power. which makes him a democrat (and not in the stupid sense of right vs. left that we are enslaved to) and entirely in line with the supposed principles of America.

broncosteven
01-31-2011, 02:30 PM
It isn't the guys like Assange who scare me it is a guy like Manning who is given the keys to the kingdom at such a young age and is willing and able to steal data and publish it for the entire world to see.

I don't see the difference between Manning and any other spy busted over the last 40 years. Stealing miliatary info is treason.

I don't have a problem with Sites like Wikileaks being up, it is the people that are willing to steal the info and feed the site that are the issue, if they have no stolen info they have no site.

Houshyamama
01-31-2011, 02:31 PM
this is true and it formed the basis of many of my criticisms of wikileaks. it is, however, unavoidably true. I lament their decision to filter this information through traditional media outlets (all this really does is empower those outlets when the entire wikileaks paradigm should be threatening their ubiquity and failure to live up to their purpose), but the volume dictates that some form of decision be made. it may have been better to simply dump all of these documents on the populace at once. I'm not sure. arguments can and should be made both ways.

I suppose it is time to address Assange's actual worldview, one that is evinced entirely by wikileak's simple existence: he believes in the unvarnished check of authoritarian power and as such has an inherent distrust of the motivations and aims of those in power. which makes him a democrat (and not in the stupid sense of right vs. left that we are enslaved to) and entirely in line with the supposed principles of America.

We are very much in line with our thinking here.

I think it is very possible that the most interesting and revelatory information released so far will come when the promised banking institution documents are puslished.

Garcia Bronco
01-31-2011, 02:36 PM
Yes. That is exactly what I said.

Why is it that when people in Iran challenged Ahmedinijad or the Ukranians had their "orange" revolution there was no great call to support democracy? I find that odd.

Nothing is as it seems. Then again, the "opposition" leader in Egypt suddenly says the Muslim Brotherhood is not violent...Lebanese and Israelis would disagree, but whatever. If you think these protests in Egypt and Tunisia have anything to do with democracy then I dont know what to tell you.

:Broncos:

This is how I see it as well.

I'll also question the use of thw word "democracy". Do we know that this is truly toward that end? Are we talking about new Democractic Republics
that subscribe to religious law?

extralife
01-31-2011, 02:36 PM
the negative reaction to the banking release will be hilarious, as those that attack wikileaks as endangering the efforts of a government established to protect collective interests will have to bend their argument to also apply to private interests which are entirely and inherently selfish and antagonistic. the "wikileaks harms innocents" will be entirely unusable. we'll figure out who the real loonies are.

extralife
01-31-2011, 02:39 PM
Stealing miliatary info is treason.

this is a joke of an argument. treason is for the benefit of an antagonistic foreign power. manning didn't provide or sell "secrets" to a state. he released them to the American public. one cannot be held in high treason for supporting that which he is accused of betraying.

Ray_Lewis'_Victim
01-31-2011, 02:39 PM
It isn't the guys like Assange who scare me it is a guy like Manning who is given the keys to the kingdom at such a young age and is willing and able to steal data and publish it for the entire world to see.


I think there's something like 2 million people with access to what Manning had access to. Its surprising to me that something like this didn't happen sooner. Its also my understanding that Manning tried to tell his superiors, "Hey there's torture going on" and they told him to drop it.

broncosteven
01-31-2011, 02:52 PM
this is a joke of an argument. treason is for the benefit of an antagonistic foreign power. manning didn't provide or sell "secrets" to a state. he released them to the American public. one cannot be held in high treason for supporting that which he is accused of betraying.

This is the wikipedia def of treason:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.


Manning stole private military secrets and posted them for anyone to do with what they may.

He committed treason.

willyallthewei
01-31-2011, 03:55 PM
how could you possibly refute it? he isn't composing any statement or fitting information into a wider piece of work that he then presents to the public. he could very possibly be cherry picking certain information that accords with his worldview, but that is extremely unlikely given the massive volume of records released. and even if it were true--100% true, lets say--the documents still exist. they still speak for themselves. they are primary sources, and whatever they say or allude to is 100% real and irrefutable. you are quite literally advocating that we shoot the messenger. we are just so indoctrinated by a media whose primary goals are advancements of agendas and protection of their cultural values rather than the presentation and elucidation of facts that you cannot help but try to find the boogeyman hiding int he closet.

The problem is the sheer volume of sensitive information being funneled into a single guys hands.

Do you trust this guy? Do you trust the guys working for him?

The first amendment right has its limitations, many limitations. Certainly, releasing information that compromises US security is not covered under the first amendment, it never was.

yerner
01-31-2011, 04:25 PM
This is the wikipedia def of treason:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.


Manning stole private military secrets and posted them for anyone to do with what they may.

He committed treason.

No way. His motivation does not fit that definition.

StugotsIII
01-31-2011, 04:29 PM
1st: Can we put this bullsh*t in the political discussion realm and not have it where we are talking about Bronco football. Unless this litte fagg can punt a football or tackles Ryan Mathews lets get this abortion of a thread out of here.

2nd: This guy is a fagg.

willyallthewei
01-31-2011, 04:29 PM
this is a joke of an argument. treason is for the benefit of an antagonistic foreign power. manning didn't provide or sell "secrets" to a state. he released them to the American public. one cannot be held in high treason for supporting that which he is accused of betraying.

There is an assumption in this argument and all the arguments of its ilk. It is the assumption that people must know.

Democracy (the laymen term) is perfectly compatible with a majority that chooses to silence an information outlet. If Americans do not want free access to sensitive information for fear that it will hurt their nation's interest (whatever the root of those interests), then Americans have a right to censor themselves from it.

We think that just because a liberal democratic society promotes free flow of information, and generally free flow of information promotes it, that therefore, people in such a society are entitled to information leaks of this nature.

Thats BS. Secrecy promotes thought, ingenuity, creativity. Disclosure to the extreme is not liberating, it is crippling. People working for companies and governments do not sign non-disclosure agreements because they want to do bad things and get away with it. There are trade secrets, professional mental impressions and various sensitive information that would undermine the very objective of the government or private entity.

All these documents that he receives, they are worth money, and in some cases lives. What is to prevent him or the people in his loop from using it for their own benefit, to endanger and undermine the goals of our elected government? Do you know why fraud legislation is so tough in this country? To prevent strike suits and the crippling of the financial services industry in costly bouts of discovery.

This guy is here playing big brother, choosing what to release, and what not to, and we trust that he's going to release the information in its entirety (atleast the relevant parts) for the benefit of the world (at least in his view)? What if he starts acting in his own interest? Now that is scary.

willyallthewei
01-31-2011, 04:31 PM
No way. His motivation does not fit that definition.

Motivation does not factor into the determination of treason.

elsid13
01-31-2011, 04:41 PM
The problem is the sheer volume of sensitive information being funneled into a single guys hands.

Do you trust this guy? Do you trust the guys working for him?

The first amendment right has its limitations, many limitations. Certainly, releasing information that compromises US security is not covered under the first amendment, it never was.

He will not be charge with Treason in this case, instead he will be charged under UCMJ 906A 106a. And based upon what he release might receive the death penalty. Bold represent the part that he will be convicted on.

UCMJ 906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE

(A)

(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns

(A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack,

(B) war plans,

(C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or

(D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is--

(A) a foreign government;

(B) a faction or party or military force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such government, faction, party, or force.

(3) A thing refereed to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance or information relating to the national defense. (b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless-- (A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and

(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c). (2) Findings under this subsection may be based on--

(A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;

(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or

(C) all such evidence. (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.

(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36)

*WARHORSE*
01-31-2011, 05:26 PM
He will not be charge with Treason in this case, instead he will be charged under UCMJ 906A 106a. And based upon what he release might receive the death penalty. Bold represent the part that he will be convicted on.

UCMJ 906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE

(A)

(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns

(A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack,

(B) war plans,

(C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or

(D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is--

(A) a foreign government;

(B) a faction or party or military force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such government, faction, party, or force.

(3) A thing refereed to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance or information relating to the national defense. (b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless-- (A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and

(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c). (2) Findings under this subsection may be based on--

(A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;

(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or

(C) all such evidence. (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.

(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36)


And rightly so. This idiot, while seeming to be of noble cause and character, has missed the bus.


He pretends under the right of free speech and press, and purposes that his acts are neutral in stance. Total baloney.

Its impossible to know what the involvement of each individual is in each individual case released. You cant honestly make an assessment of a situation without all the facts. The first to present his case always seems right.

Releasing information like that with peoples lives on the line is murderous.


It no different than a young kid defending being addicted to drugs, with his freedom of choice.

"Sure drugs are harmful, but its MY choice and You dont have a say in it."

No one takes his choice, he can just as easily choose not to do drugs. The matter of choice is not the issue. We ALWAYS have our choice.

The issue is, dont you know the drugs are harmful? Yes.

Then why are you doing it?






As long as people focus on the cause of freedom on the individual level as the most sacred of liberties, this promises chaos.

It is: WE THE PEOPLE...........of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the most sacred.

It is the good of the whole, not the good of the individual that is the most precious.

Always has......always will be.

mhgaffney
01-31-2011, 05:48 PM
there is nothing noble about spreading America's information and secret documents to the world without any focus on where they go. All that does is harm those in public service and hurt our country's aims and goals across the world.

If he wants to help our country in some way with that information, take it to our government and let them know their information security sucks and that he as a worthless hack was able to gain access to it.

What?

mhgaffney
01-31-2011, 05:49 PM
And rightly so. This idiot, while seeming to be of noble cause and character, has missed the bus.


He pretends under the right of free speech and press, and purposes that his acts are neutral in stance. Total baloney.

Its impossible to know what the involvement of each individual is in each individual case released. You cant honestly make an assessment of a situation without all the facts. The first to present his case always seems right.

Releasing information like that with peoples lives on the line is murderous.


It no different than a young kid defending being addicted to drugs, with his freedom of choice.

"Sure drugs are harmful, but its MY choice and You dont have a say in it."

No one takes his choice, he can just as easily choose not to do drugs. The matter of choice is not the issue. We ALWAYS have our choice.

The issue is, dont you know the drugs are harmful? Yes.

Then why are you doing it?






As long as people focus on the cause of freedom on the individual level as the most sacred of liberties, this promises chaos.

It is: WE THE PEOPLE...........of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the most sacred.

It is the good of the whole, not the good of the individual that is the most precious.

Always has......always will be.

Another ignorant American vents bilious falderal.

mhgaffney
01-31-2011, 05:51 PM
1st: Can we put this bullsh*t in the political discussion realm and not have it where we are talking about Bronco football. Unless this litte fagg can punt a football or tackles Ryan Mathews lets get this abortion of a thread out of here.

2nd: This guy is a fagg.

Stupid just got stupider.

extralife
01-31-2011, 06:31 PM
This is the wikipedia def of treason:

whelp, I'm convinced

doonwise
01-31-2011, 06:35 PM
Too bad the interviewer didn't just take out a gun and pop him real quick. The guy is a piece of sh*t.
Nice, "He should die; I don't like him." You make a strong case for eugenics.

Odysseus
01-31-2011, 06:37 PM
Too bad the interviewer didn't just take out a gun and pop him real quick. The guy is a piece of sh*t.

Nobody associated with military likes this prick.

I respect his point of view but think his actions are harmful. His is killing people but claim that there is no blood on his hands.

extralife
01-31-2011, 06:38 PM
you know who kills more people in a day than Assange will kill in his whole life?

the military

baja
01-31-2011, 06:50 PM
you know who kills more people in a day than Assange will kill in his whole life?

the military

Kind of ironic the guy shedding light on the covered up wrongful death of 15,000 innocent Iraqis is called a murderer.

Houshyamama
01-31-2011, 07:03 PM
Nobody associated with military likes this prick.

I respect his point of view but think his actions are harmful. His is killing people but claim that there is no blood on his hands.

Source?

broncosteven
01-31-2011, 08:47 PM
whelp, I'm convinced

Does this sound familar because they are the same things:

"treason is for the benefit of an antagonistic foreign power"

Elsid is right, he may not get convicted for treason but he broke the law and what ever confidentially agreement or security agreement he signed when he got the access.

I still think a government could use the info he posted for harm against us. We won't know the extent of Mannings actions for a long time.

At least spy's like the Falcon and snow man guys and the dude busted in the 1980's got paid for handing over info, alot of which wasn't usefull. Manning posted usefull info which could cause US citizens or it's ally's harm.

extralife
01-31-2011, 10:41 PM
so you responded to my definition of treason by copypasta from wikipedia only to then tell me that you agree with my definition. then you fall back on the same argument that I originally responded to.

of course he will be convicted. of course he broke some sort of law. and of course I don't care, because what he did was beneficial to the people, rather than to the people that have the power to convict him of whatever they need to convict him of. a traitor is not someone that opposes those in power. a traitor is someone that both opposes the ideals of the nation and acts on that opposition. like, you know, the people in our government.

I suppose Definition Number 2 would be something like aiming a gun at an american citizen or soldier in an act of war, because all ideology goes out the window when you start pulling the trigger.

*WARHORSE*
01-31-2011, 10:50 PM
Another ignorant American vents bilious falderal.


And another half wit spends an hour in his dictionary.

mhgaffney
01-31-2011, 11:13 PM
It got stinky in here.

Old warhorse just farted into the wind.

richpjr
01-31-2011, 11:57 PM
Absolutely stunning that people can think an attention whore like that is a hero. Stunning...

Requiem
02-01-2011, 12:04 AM
Keep more of the documents coming. :)

mhgaffney
02-01-2011, 12:20 AM
It was not Assange but rather actions by the US government that put WikiLeaks in the spotlight.

Garcia Bronco
02-01-2011, 07:51 AM
Assange is also a rapist

Garcia Bronco
02-01-2011, 07:53 AM
Does this sound familar because they are the same things:

"treason is for the benefit of an antagonistic foreign power"

Elsid is right, he may not get convicted for treason but he broke the law and what ever confidentially agreement or security agreement he signed when he got the access.

I still think a government could use the info he posted for harm against us. We won't know the extent of Mannings actions for a long time.

At least spy's like the Falcon and snow man guys and the dude busted in the 1980's got paid for handing over info, alot of which wasn't usefull. Manning posted usefull info which could cause US citizens or it's ally's harm.

He broke military law, rules, regulation, or whatever you want to call it. He's going to jail for a long time.

Archer81
02-01-2011, 07:56 AM
It was not Assange but rather actions by the US government that put WikiLeaks in the spotlight.


Right. Releasing classified American documents wont get you noticed...and then when they know you are going to do it and they threaten lawsuits or jail, you can always use the threat of more releases if you are arrested or harmed.

Hero my ass. More like an extortionist that looks like a discarded Bond villain.

Lame.

:Broncos:

Rohirrim
02-01-2011, 08:45 AM
1st: Can we put this bullsh*t in the political discussion realm and not have it where we are talking about Bronco football. Unless this litte fagg can punt a football or tackles Ryan Mathews lets get this abortion of a thread out of here.

2nd: This guy is a fagg.

I believe this illuminating exemplar of erudition has wrapped up this thread. ;D