| Author |
Message |
    
Gaesati
| | Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 09:44 am: | 
|
Is publicising the actions of the state a treasonable matter? Sounds like the sort of rationale the Nazis would have used to me. I suppose Richard Nixon would have liked to have restricted access to Watergate.
It was wonderful listening to all the arguments about WMD's to justify the invasion and subjugation of a sovereign state only to discover there were no WMD's. In my lifetime not much seems to have changed since the Tonkin gulf incident in the 1960's. All Governments not just the US should be be open to public scrutiny. |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Why? The 'openess' that it sounds like you're suggesting would only be possible or effective if every single government on earth were to do the same thing at the same time. Until that happens.... It's just a pipe dream. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 02:06 pm: |
|
quote:He posted videos of Americans blowing up Iraqi goat farmers. Who's the criminal?
Thats easy, the criminals are the terrorists dressing as and blending in with Iraqi goat farmers, in violation of the rules or war.
(Message edited by reepicheep on August 18, 2012) |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 04:36 pm: |
|
Her Majesty's Government has the power to pull him anytime they want to. There exists an as yet unused law allowing temporary suspension of a premises diplomatic status to allow law enforcement to do the necessary.
However HMG is reluctant to set an international precedent due to this tosser.
He's got no way out & sooner or later he'll be bagged.
If the sexual assault/rape charges are trumped up he should get a good lawyer & face them down.
As far as the Wikileaks thing goes, I have mixed feelings about it.
It all comes down to a question of viewpoint.
To many his actions are reprehensible some of you talk of treason even, but to many others he's a hero who stood up against the big bully.
Same facts, same players different points of view.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Hell even the US government defines a large part of it's citizenry as possible terrorists.
Where do you draw the line?
Which side of the line do you view events from?
What do you do when your conscience puts you over the wrong side of that line?
I can't answer these questions for you, & I sure hope you never have to answer the last one, but it's looking more likely than ever. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 05:07 pm: |
|
For blowing the whistle on state secrets to be an act of patriotism instead of treason (which I think it could be), you must be revealing something that is extra constitutional. And be right. And go about it in a VERY responsible way.
I'd say Assange got at least two of those three things wrong, and more likely all three. IMHO. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 08:41 pm: |
|
... only to discover there were no WMD's.
False. There were. We found some. Some were used against us ( but the binary nerve gas failed to work properly because of poor handling....and the IED makers thought the shell was normal.... Saddam had his poison shells marked as normal HE to hide them Per UN observer reports.) Some were sent to Syria ( where they may yet be used to kill civilians, again. This time by Asad, again. ) while thousands of tons of poison gas, THAT WAS COUNTED BY THE UN OBSERVERS, is still missing.
Despite that error on your part, ( and I'll assume you were lied to and just repeating that lie ) I agree with your scepticism on the veracity of any government.
Ask the Poles about the mustard gas. Or the Canadians about the Yellow Cake Uranium. Or the US troops who had the nerve gas alarms go off as they crossed the Tigris River in the first days of the war.
Also Remember the Maine. |
Gaesati
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 07:34 am: |
|
IF Assange's spin is able to be believed it is that Sweden cannot be trusted not to give him up to the U.S. when the U.S. puts pressure on the swedish government once he is in their power. Why does Assange have so many people who are prepared to believe this and therefore support him? Clearly, many people don't believe that the U.S. practises anything other than realpolitik. Maybe this has something to do with the practice of rendition.
Unfortunately, many people, even supporters of the U.S. such as myself, believe that the U.S. government will get what it wants no matter what. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 11:52 am: |
|
If I get a speeding ticket here in the US in a state I am not a resident of (say Pennsylvania) and decide to stick it to the man and not pay it, not much happens immediately.
But a couple years later, I could be in Ohio, and be pulled over for another speeding ticket. At that point, the police will run my record, find out a warrant has been issued for my arrest in Pennsylvania, and the cop will (possibly) arrest me, and take me to jail, at which point I will either need to post bond or I will be extradited to back to Pennsylvania to face charges for failing to appear or pay off my previous ticket.
When you break the law, you get arrested. When you get arrested, you are subject to other laws you might have broken. One of which may be extradition to face other countries (because the law of the country you are arrested in says they should do that).
At the end of the day, Assange, as far as I could tell, believed so strongly that George Bush and the United States of America was evil, that he was willing to let as many Afgani and Iraqi citizens die as necessary to see that, well, Julian Assange got attention. |
Pookawa
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 12:10 pm: |
|
for a guy who builds his business marketing 'transparency' and gleefully points the finger at others... he sure doesn't seem to want to publicly explain his own actions. He chose the wrong career: should have chosen politics. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 01:14 pm: |
|
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Not true. A freedom fighter does not target women and children. A terrorist does. By their actions you will know them.
Hell even the US government defines a large part of it's citizenry as possible terrorists.
That's true. That's because they believe the lie I refute above.
"Where do you draw the line?"
On Julian, I tend to agree with Reepicheep, he did what he did to make himself famous and rich. He doesn't care who dies because of him, and many have. If he thought his actions were going to create a utopia by foiling the Evil America, he's deluded. Not just because he hasn't created that utopia, but because he has the cowards attitude on protesting.
He happily attacks those he KNOWS will not kill him out of hand. His kind protests ONLY against countries or groups that they know will not break custom and crush them. You will never hear a brave word from Julian about any group that would kill him for his words. Van Gogh was a hero and a martyr for civilization. Julian is a tool.
"Which side of the line do you view events from?"
Sidelines. 40 yd line.
"What do you do when your conscience puts you over the wrong side of that line?"
Don't support terrorism or murderers. Period. Julian does. |
Glitch
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 07:06 pm: |
|
|
|
