alternet.org— The Espionage Act is a huge danger to our open society; it's been used to send hundreds of dissenters to jail just for voicing their opinions, transforming dissent into treason.
Dec 29, 2010View in Crawl 4
Set Assange on fire and throw him off the Empire State building. There is NOTHING about this man to admire, including his awful Martha Stewart hairdo.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Novey complaining about character assassination. Hahahahaha. Seen him call people alcoholics and drug addicts cause he doesn't agree with them. Novies character wasn't assassinated, it was a suicide.
From Novies digg profile.
"Revolutionary communist/fascist/marxist/islamist who wants to imprison millions into FEMA camps, close all churches, force people to eat nothing but sawdust bread, and kill grandma with my diabolical health care reform plan."
Or is only Novey allowed to "joke around" with what he says? Although with "close all churches" it makes me wonder if he means everything else said.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Here's what takes conservatives a while to get used to. Leftists never feel they should be accountable for their words or actions, the underlying intent should be assessed instead. All the while the exact opposite standard is held for non lefts.
Examples are everywhere.. look at any aspect.
Novie, I'm sure, will be quick to point out that the intent of his profile text is humor, therefore no foul. Given he's poking fun at how some conservative loonies vistereotype the left - on Digg, it stands. Should a right leaning person satirize the left's stereotypes of the right in their profile, I don't think Digg would allow that account to stand. Try it and see.
Just google "Novenator calls for violence" and look at all the links. I won't paste your quote because I know you have lots of little minions who might take action. The worlds not ready for another Jim Jones yet nov. Tell your army to stand down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
An post by quirkopatra directing us to another site in which novenator posted regarding Che Guevera. That's about it though. Definitely not "advocating violence against right wingers this past election".
While we are on the subject of how evil Che is (check the post in question to follow this tangent)... I'm baffled how people who identify themselves as "right wingers" reconcile their disgust for progressive revolutionaries yet praise someone like Bush Jr. His wars have killed countless innocents, yet they never mention how evil Bush is. 100000+ (conservatively, and in Iraq alone) innocent deaths is no small crime.
Che Guevara was Castro's hatchet man, a terrorist and a mercenary who made a good living out of murdering complete strangers in foreign countries and ordering executions of prisoners without trial.
So when a person like Novenator, who has thousands of little followers, gets on his bull-horn after the elections and calls for "a little Che action in America right now" you can see why some people might get upset. Thankfully liberals like him are all talk and no action.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Che Guevara was Castro's hatchet man, a terrorist and a mercenary who made a good living out of murdering complete strangers in foreign countries and ordering executions of prisoners without trial. "
This sounds oddly like a former PUSA. How about:
Blackwater were Bushes hatchet men, terrorist's and mercenaries who made a good living out of murdering complete strangers in foreign countries and ordering executions of prisoners without trial.
@triptastic
Way to change the subject. I'm not calling for a little Blackwater action in America right now (we got a taste of that during Katrina). I'm probably the only one on Digg who owns Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
By the way, I was never a Bush lover either. I hated him before it was trendy. I especially hated how he sent me and my buddies to war for no good god damned reason! BTW, you're number of casualties is off by about 900,000. And lets not forget these wars are still going on (spreading into Pakistan now) and Obama is drone happy, dropping bombs on crowded food markets daily just to kill one man. I dislike any President who's more concerned with anything and everything else except ending needless bloodshed.
I didn't change the subject. First, I called you out. You made an outrageous claim regarding novenator that could not be justified.
Then, I went on an admitted tangent about the thread that your claim led me to. In my tangent I wondered out loud what the difference was between one mass murderer or another. You went off about one specific person and I am still curious what the difference is. We could replace "Blackwater" and "Bush" with any dictator/special police/black ops/assassins. I never suggested you supported Bush. I wondered how people who label themselves as right wing tend to support right wing dictators yet condemn the same from the other side of the fence.
The official numbers from the classified logs (yes the ones that are relevant to this discussion) state about 100000+. I am certain this number is much higher, hence the "conservative".
I'm sorry you and your buddies were sent off to die. What did you expect joining the Airforce? Hugs and kisses? You joined an institution that murders and gets murdered. Not anyones fault but those who join up, unless there is a draft.
I also find it odd that you would think you are the only one on digg to own Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. I own it and I imagine it sold more than 2 copies, so stop with the hyperbole. You discredit yourself.
If you support the current model of government at all, then you support violence be used against those who do not voluntarily submit to the government you support. You cannot pretend it's not violence just by giving them non-violent options to submit to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Perhaps the most ignorant statement today. This isn't the Kevin Bacon game. So stop trying to string things together that have loose affiliations. It's the equivalent of saying "If you like cheese, then you support the slaughtering of cows."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
if one does not submit to government..they are generally a non-violent option to submit to such as a fine..if they don't submit to that they are beaten and caged...if they don't submit to that they are killed
ignorance is the inability to understand this simple reality
Yes because when it comes right down to it, it's always just that simple... The square root of 9 isn't always 3. That's what we're all taught in grade school, but there's more to it.
Nothing to admire? He was put in solitary confinement for several days, and he's still determined to carry on, because he believes it exposes unjust and immoral behavior.
History will remember Assange as another Gandhi or Mandella. You're truly on the wrong side of history, and I hope some day you see that.
I am not making any concrete claims, but it does appear that Wikileaks may be a controlled intelligence leak. If more time and research proves this to be the case, I am not sure Assange will be in the same historical bucket as gandhi or mandella.
With that being said, I do think Assange and his intentions are real. However, I am still evaluating and analyzing the potential of him being a "useful idiot" for an intelligence operation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You are a child if you think that this in anyway will make the U.S. government more transparent. If anything it will have the exact opposite effect. All of this is aside from the fact that a completely transparent government is beyond laughable in a world where that transparent government has to deal with non-transparent government. How would diplomatic relations work between transparent and non-transparent entities. How would security work if there was total transparency. Transparency is one of those things that sounds great in theory but totally ineffective in reality. Should governments be more transparent, absolutely, but to advocate the level of transparency that wiki leaks claims to represent is ridiculous. On top of all of this the idea that the U.S. government is somehow being out foxed by Julian Asange is comical. With the advanced levels of cyber terrorism committed by the NSA,CIA or ??? taking down wiki-leaks would be child's play. He is being allowed to do what he is doing for very specific reasons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
They would have taken down wiki leaks already if it was child's play... They would have ended piracy of digital products already if that was the case as well...
But that's besides the point.
Once the people get a taste for juicy government drama they will want more, giving rise to more wiki leaks.
Now move on with your conspiracy theories. I don't want em.
rotfox, you make concrete claims that cannot be proven. This alone shows that you are irrational. I never claimed anything that was not true or outside the realm of possibility.
Intelligence op or not, the wikileaks saga will just increase government secrecy and be used as an excuse to attack the first amendment. Maybe you'll wake up once that happens..but don't act surprised
I'll provide a definition for assistance:
"an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot."
Conspiracies take place every day. Ignoring them as a explanation for how certain events takes place shows an ignorance in understanding how the world has worked for thousands of years.
^ THIS!!! As much as the right wing talks about the left being the dreamers, it must be difficult for them to fathom that their walking backwards being totally counter to where reality is taking humanity. The tides of man wanting more freedom, prosperity, education and control of their own lives has always risen in past history. This will be the way it is forever.
Presumably, you also feel the same about Glen Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and any politician who lied their way into a position of power this election cycle.
I thought that there were lots of people who said that free speech is not absolute. I mean, they say that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Releasing the video of the helicopter attack on civilians was on the same level as watergate and i fully support wiki-leaks in that instance. However, releasing diplomatic cables serves no useful purpose. Private conversations between diplomats is not being "covered up" and should not be transparent. The sensitive targets list was also dangerous and security should not be transparent. Asange weakens his case when that type of information is released.
I disagree it serves no purpose. Everyone can now see this dog and pony show for what it is. How can anyone think mature, intelligent people run our governments now? They have all been exposed as greedy, corrupt, petty individuals with power and status controlling their decisions, not the welfare of their represented people and states.
You can't be serious...Sadly you probably are.. we can start by highlighting the simple fact that yelling "fire" in a theater is not the same in principle as sharing / reporting information (speaking truth).
To call these two actions the same in principle, is like saying an armed murderer is acting no different in principle than an armed man who stops him from murdering more people.
That analogy is entirely wrong. You are allowed to yell fire as you do have freedom of speech. However inciting panic by using your free speech is a punishable crime.
As long as Assange did not directly conspire with a person to get the information he has, he did not commit espionage. If he conspired with a person to go and get that information, well he really f**ked up there if they find proof of it.
I really enjoyed the way that you trampled on that mans hope and innocence. I love the way that you just brushed aside all his feeling regardless of innocents or not. I mean just watching how you, with no evidence, just sentenced his deceased parents of being spies was glorious.
FTA:
"I view the Espionage Act of 1917 as a lifelong nemesis. My parents were charged, tried and ultimately executed after being indicted for Conspiracy to Commit Espionage under that act."
This is sad. He refuses to see the fact that his parents were spies who had their day in court and were found guilty and paid for their crime. Maybe he thinks it was the one armed man who did it?
Spoken like someone who has little or no experience with the judicial system. Blind faith will definitely take you far; after a few slaps upside your head. Innocent people are incarcerated everyday. Until it's you, everything is just hunky-dory isn't it?
Really? A dated 'law' from 1917 is what they are going to go after them with? Seems like this administration is really no different than the Bush Regime.
I think the rest of the modern world need to pass laws that state "f**k you US, you don't get to charge our citizens with s**t".
He raped someone, why should we protect him? Maybe we should give him a nice place to hide, called Guantanamo, where our version of water sports is a little bit different than Australia.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yeah, so far all I've seen were allegations. Where's the proof?
Were the two women he slept with coerced by...associates of the U.S.?
We don't know, yet. But I believe he deserves a fair trial. The evidence should be shown and made known. All this is doing is ruining his reputation (not). Either way, the U.S. is acting like children with this situation. They should not blame him for their faults, after all, it was they who've committed and allowed such crimes to happen in the first place.
I recommend to readers to research into the Espionage Act of 1917.
You can clearly see, many people were wrongfully and unconstitutionally rounded up for using their 1st amendment rights, and declared as anarchists. Many immigrants were deported also.
(don't flame me, just trying to be civil ;D)
I also recommend reading "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress" By Howard Zinn. It details the unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act, and many faults we have in modern societies.
**Yes let's protect Mr. Assange. Let's side against the Government. Sounds like a swell idea. Let's get together a gigantic following and protest. Yayyy, free speech, go wikileaks, go**
... None of you complain when the Government fights back and starts packing in regulations, i.e. cutting off, monitoring, inhibiting more activity on the internet
The article makes a fine point about the questionable constitutionality of the Espionage Act. Whether you support Assange's efforts or not, it's worth considering that his anticipated indictment would lead to greater scrutiny of the act and potential challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Rumors are swirling that the United States is preparing to indict Wikileaks leader Julian Assange for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act of 1917."
If you want to protect him from rumors, stop posting rumors.
I am going to be honest, I didn't read the article...but I will still make a very valid point relating to some other comments.
People saying things like "his parents were spies...". This may or may not be a real representation of what his parents did, but I challenge you to research what the espionage act has been used for. If you do objective research, I don't see how you could think it contributes to freedom in any way, shape, or form..the same way the patriot act does the opposite of promoting freedom.
I am almost as liberal as they come, but I cannot have any admiration for this guy. Exposing injustice? Fine- it should be done more. Stirring the pot unnecessarily? That is what the release of the diplomatic cables appears to me to be. If his motives were pure, why do that?
And I will go ahead and admit that I think he looks and sounds like a creeper.
This is one of the more troubling parts of this whole fiasco. There are a lot of things that do not logically add up.
It's one of the things that makes me wonder if Assange is just a "useful idiot," for lack of a better term, for a covert intelligence operation. There are a number of things that make me and many others suspect this. Time and more research will tell, but this may be something you want to consider.
Webster Tarpley and Wayne Madsen talk about this (you can probably google some videos to hear their logic/reasons) and are more certain than I currently am, but I have to be honest I haven't spent much time checking their sources and whatnot.
"Stirring the pot unnecessarily? That is what the release of the diplomatic cables appears to me to be."
If you think that, you're not paying attention. It's totally in the public interest to know much of what the cables have exposed, e.g. Pfizer's alleged attempt to smear Nigeria's attorney general.
what f**king ignorance. let's just make it so that all of our national security secrets can be released with impunity and without fear of reprisal. god knows spewing out all of our secrets can only make our country safer.
Leaks in the U.S. government happen all the time. The difference is that a private is accused of doing it and doing it bigger than ever done before and also without benefit to himself.
Whoever did this could have just sent the information directly to some country or entity that is an enemy, but instead it was sent to an entity that publishes it for the people of the world. I don't consider the people of the world the enemy. The governments that are blocking their citizens from viewing the leaked documents seem like an enemy to me. These include China and Iran. The U.S. government blocks some of its employees from viewing the leaked documents for some reason I don't understand, but I think it wants to protect them from them truth.
One big flaw with your argument: Julian Assange is releasing illegally obtained classified documents. No matter what part of the political spectrum you find yourself in, the simple fact is that the guy has broken the law.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Nonsense. All classified documents ever published in the media without authorization were obtained illegally. Stealing documents might be illegal under certain circumstances, but publishing them? Nope. You need to read about the Pentagon Papers.
Indeed, Nixon believed that the NYT was breaking the law by publishing the Pentagon Papers after the government had told them not to, but he was completely wrong in a historical sense. Just like you are.
Posts full of blatant logic errors and just plain incorrect information like this are heavily concentrated in the side for our government's corruption and secrets and against Assange's championing freedom of the press. It has never, ever been illegal to report or release the contents of classified documents. It is, however, illegal to steal documents, and is illegal to release classified information if you are a state worker or enlisted in the military (in some ways you sign away your 1st amendment right). Please get your facts together or further your education before taking such a strong stance on the wrong side of this argement.
There's a very fine line between journalism and conspiracy to commit espionage. If he in anyway worked with the person to cause the documents to be stolen then may very well be guilty under the espionage act. However from everything that is available so far there is nothing to support this.
How does the NYTimes or WaPo or any other person write an article about classified information? Does the story just show up on their doorstep? In Wikileaks case, yes..via upload.
Most newspapers, historically required two sources (or documentation) to publish an article with classified information.
How lovely, the digg community discussing issues that they can't take part of. "I hate hime, burn him!" "He's our new saviour" "He's wrong because bla bla bla"
How many lives is one man worth? He hasn't done anything righteous. He got a large bundle of information, didn't even bother sorting through it, and released it to the public compromising the lives of an innumerable number people.
Actually, he didn't just release it to the public. He sent it off to media outlets like The Guardian and the New York Times to help sift through the information and redact facts that might put people at risk.
Being able to hold truth to light is the only hope the Earth has to go on living.. Freedom of speech needs protection and access to information is key.. Leaders and everyone needs to know the internet can be used to hold people to account. People who make that possible are the good guys.
Right now I doubt there's anything the Wikileaks haters can do to undo their deliriously bad handling of the situation. It has been a huge overreaction with no proof at all that there are actually 250,000 cables to be released. Less than 1 percent of that number has been released so far. Do the other cables even exist? Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, the reaction has been terrible. Drumming up charges so far afterwords is unethical, pure and simple. What Wikileaks has done is not in any way-shape-or-form a terrorist act or worthy of death threats. If anyone should be locked up, it is those who feel it is within their moral boundaries to threaten other people with death. They are the one who are a danger to society. The odds are better than anything that when all is said and done, Wikileaks will have saved far more lives than will have been lost.
The problem here is that the punishment did not fit the crime. The Rosenbergs were guilty of passing information to the Soviets. The problem is, and the fact got mysteriously lost, the information that was stolen for the A- bomb was totally useless to the Soviets, who had already developed an A-bomb by the time the Rosenbergs obtained the information. This is probably the best example of over kill, literally, in legal history.
God you are such a f**king moron. Read my post, then the first sentence of your post:
"A British judge today ordered WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange held without bail today on four charges related to a Swedish sex crimes investigation"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Im the f**king moron, wheres your post.. huh s**thead. I wasn't talking to you... remember this s**thead you attacked me first. so shut your f**king piehole I wasn't f**king talking to you in the first place. So get off your f**king high horse and f**k off!!! plain and simple. how you like that for cussing Happy f**king newyear... assh**e
Attorney General Holder's fascination with identifying US citizens as terrorists scares me in the same way the Red scare of the 40s and 50s does -- keeping fodder for the war machine and driving down wages is more import than citizens' constitutional rights.
In Florida, they say sunshine for government is the best disinfectant and it may be that a very large part of Julian Assange's revelations fit into the governmental disinfectant category.
So a person has tons of sensitive information that the public 'has a right to see'. This person selects which portions of the whole he'd like the public to see now, which portions later, and which portions should remain hidden. Further, this person holds on to the 'real juicy' information and uses it as a threat/blackmail to deter the original information holders from retaliating to the leak. This is a hero?
Ask yourself this: Would you support a Wikileaks-leaks site? A site that was leaked the full content that Assange is holding and leaked it all at once? If so, you have to acknowledge Assange is in a position with no accountability and choosing what the masses can see himself - a censor. Otherwise no need to leak the leak.
If you wouldn't support someone leaking the full wikileaks content, why not?
If he (or others at WL) don't censor, then I could just 'shop a picture of me and your mom and put it on the internet. Or I could just use the real ones...either way, the information coming out of Wikileaks would be useless and no one would pay attention. There has to be some level of censorship, that argument can always be used...kinda like the "Assange won't post cables regarding Israel" meme. Someone will always have a problem with it being filtered at all. There's no evidence that he's censoring anything, and based on our government and their pet media's hysteria, he doing it right.
Sharing state secrets fits squarely within the "aid and comfort" clause. But of course, Assange is not a US citizen and so can not really be tried with treason. He can most certainly be charged with espionage.
alanocuDec 29, 2010
Gross.
Set Assange on fire and throw him off the Empire State building. There is NOTHING about this man to admire, including his awful Martha Stewart hairdo.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghengiskhan1Dec 29, 2010
I want to know how you really feel about him.
Balzac__Dec 31, 2010
ghengiskhan1, you are a half-wit genocide advocate. I read what you wrote about people in Afghanistan.
Digg ought to shut down accounts where this kind of crap is written.
novenatorDec 30, 2010
Advocating violence against a man who has committed no crimes. How predictable.
wf80diditDec 30, 2010
Ha, like when you advocated violence against right wingers this past election cycle?
novenatorDec 30, 2010
What are you talking about? I never advocated violence against anyone. What's with the character assassination wf?
wf80diditDec 30, 2010
You know what I'm talking about Nov. Need I post a link to your very own words?
novenatorDec 30, 2010
Yes, because it doesn't exist. You made the claim, back it up.
delphium226Dec 31, 2010
Hmmmm..... no proof has been provided. How very wingnut.
davidtcDec 30, 2010
Novey complaining about character assassination. Hahahahaha. Seen him call people alcoholics and drug addicts cause he doesn't agree with them. Novies character wasn't assassinated, it was a suicide.
From Novies digg profile.
"Revolutionary communist/fascist/marxist/islamist who wants to imprison millions into FEMA camps, close all churches, force people to eat nothing but sawdust bread, and kill grandma with my diabolical health care reform plan."
Or is only Novey allowed to "joke around" with what he says? Although with "close all churches" it makes me wonder if he means everything else said.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pwrxDec 31, 2010
Here's what takes conservatives a while to get used to. Leftists never feel they should be accountable for their words or actions, the underlying intent should be assessed instead. All the while the exact opposite standard is held for non lefts.
Examples are everywhere.. look at any aspect.
Novie, I'm sure, will be quick to point out that the intent of his profile text is humor, therefore no foul. Given he's poking fun at how some conservative loonies vistereotype the left - on Digg, it stands. Should a right leaning person satirize the left's stereotypes of the right in their profile, I don't think Digg would allow that account to stand. Try it and see.
wf80diditDec 30, 2010
Just google "Novenator calls for violence" and look at all the links. I won't paste your quote because I know you have lots of little minions who might take action. The worlds not ready for another Jim Jones yet nov. Tell your army to stand down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
triptasticDec 30, 2010
Ok, I'll bite. I googled "Novenator calls for violence" just like you said and found: http://digg.com/news/politics/digg_s_own_novenator_calls_for_an_armed_revolution/20101103012201:ca7efa7a8de040938a1064e898b33f2a
An post by quirkopatra directing us to another site in which novenator posted regarding Che Guevera. That's about it though. Definitely not "advocating violence against right wingers this past election".
While we are on the subject of how evil Che is (check the post in question to follow this tangent)... I'm baffled how people who identify themselves as "right wingers" reconcile their disgust for progressive revolutionaries yet praise someone like Bush Jr. His wars have killed countless innocents, yet they never mention how evil Bush is. 100000+ (conservatively, and in Iraq alone) innocent deaths is no small crime.
wf80diditDec 30, 2010
Che Guevara was Castro's hatchet man, a terrorist and a mercenary who made a good living out of murdering complete strangers in foreign countries and ordering executions of prisoners without trial.
So when a person like Novenator, who has thousands of little followers, gets on his bull-horn after the elections and calls for "a little Che action in America right now" you can see why some people might get upset. Thankfully liberals like him are all talk and no action.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
triptasticDec 31, 2010
Nice red herring.
"Che Guevara was Castro's hatchet man, a terrorist and a mercenary who made a good living out of murdering complete strangers in foreign countries and ordering executions of prisoners without trial. "
This sounds oddly like a former PUSA. How about:
Blackwater were Bushes hatchet men, terrorist's and mercenaries who made a good living out of murdering complete strangers in foreign countries and ordering executions of prisoners without trial.
So, now, how is this different?
wf80diditDec 31, 2010
@triptastic
Way to change the subject. I'm not calling for a little Blackwater action in America right now (we got a taste of that during Katrina). I'm probably the only one on Digg who owns Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
By the way, I was never a Bush lover either. I hated him before it was trendy. I especially hated how he sent me and my buddies to war for no good god damned reason! BTW, you're number of casualties is off by about 900,000. And lets not forget these wars are still going on (spreading into Pakistan now) and Obama is drone happy, dropping bombs on crowded food markets daily just to kill one man. I dislike any President who's more concerned with anything and everything else except ending needless bloodshed.
triptasticDec 31, 2010
I didn't change the subject. First, I called you out. You made an outrageous claim regarding novenator that could not be justified.
Then, I went on an admitted tangent about the thread that your claim led me to. In my tangent I wondered out loud what the difference was between one mass murderer or another. You went off about one specific person and I am still curious what the difference is. We could replace "Blackwater" and "Bush" with any dictator/special police/black ops/assassins. I never suggested you supported Bush. I wondered how people who label themselves as right wing tend to support right wing dictators yet condemn the same from the other side of the fence.
I think you totally missed my point...
As for the death casaulty, I pulled my numbers from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
The official numbers from the classified logs (yes the ones that are relevant to this discussion) state about 100000+. I am certain this number is much higher, hence the "conservative".
I'm sorry you and your buddies were sent off to die. What did you expect joining the Airforce? Hugs and kisses? You joined an institution that murders and gets murdered. Not anyones fault but those who join up, unless there is a draft.
I also find it odd that you would think you are the only one on digg to own Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. I own it and I imagine it sold more than 2 copies, so stop with the hyperbole. You discredit yourself.
njdoo7Dec 30, 2010
If you support the current model of government at all, then you support violence be used against those who do not voluntarily submit to the government you support. You cannot pretend it's not violence just by giving them non-violent options to submit to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
innerspikeDec 30, 2010
Perhaps the most ignorant statement today. This isn't the Kevin Bacon game. So stop trying to string things together that have loose affiliations. It's the equivalent of saying "If you like cheese, then you support the slaughtering of cows."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Dec 31, 2010
if one does not submit to government..they are generally a non-violent option to submit to such as a fine..if they don't submit to that they are beaten and caged...if they don't submit to that they are killed
ignorance is the inability to understand this simple reality
innerspikeDec 31, 2010
Yes because when it comes right down to it, it's always just that simple... The square root of 9 isn't always 3. That's what we're all taught in grade school, but there's more to it.
HELPFEEDTHETROLLDec 31, 2010
If ugliness was a crime, he'd have been assassinated a few years ago.
joe7845Dec 30, 2010
Nothing to admire? He was put in solitary confinement for several days, and he's still determined to carry on, because he believes it exposes unjust and immoral behavior.
History will remember Assange as another Gandhi or Mandella. You're truly on the wrong side of history, and I hope some day you see that.
njdoo7Dec 30, 2010
I am not making any concrete claims, but it does appear that Wikileaks may be a controlled intelligence leak. If more time and research proves this to be the case, I am not sure Assange will be in the same historical bucket as gandhi or mandella.
With that being said, I do think Assange and his intentions are real. However, I am still evaluating and analyzing the potential of him being a "useful idiot" for an intelligence operation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rotfoxDec 30, 2010
Useful idiot? I'm not sure that should be the term connected with the man.
A cunning fox maybe, but not an idiot.
Aaah... hopefully this will bring about a more transparent government, I do love seeing government officials making idiots of themselves.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
You are a child if you think that this in anyway will make the U.S. government more transparent. If anything it will have the exact opposite effect. All of this is aside from the fact that a completely transparent government is beyond laughable in a world where that transparent government has to deal with non-transparent government. How would diplomatic relations work between transparent and non-transparent entities. How would security work if there was total transparency. Transparency is one of those things that sounds great in theory but totally ineffective in reality. Should governments be more transparent, absolutely, but to advocate the level of transparency that wiki leaks claims to represent is ridiculous. On top of all of this the idea that the U.S. government is somehow being out foxed by Julian Asange is comical. With the advanced levels of cyber terrorism committed by the NSA,CIA or ??? taking down wiki-leaks would be child's play. He is being allowed to do what he is doing for very specific reasons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rotfoxDec 30, 2010
They would have taken down wiki leaks already if it was child's play... They would have ended piracy of digital products already if that was the case as well...
But that's besides the point.
Once the people get a taste for juicy government drama they will want more, giving rise to more wiki leaks.
Now move on with your conspiracy theories. I don't want em.
njdoo7Dec 31, 2010
rotfox, you make concrete claims that cannot be proven. This alone shows that you are irrational. I never claimed anything that was not true or outside the realm of possibility.
Intelligence op or not, the wikileaks saga will just increase government secrecy and be used as an excuse to attack the first amendment. Maybe you'll wake up once that happens..but don't act surprised
rotfoxDec 31, 2010
Huuuuuh? I said "hopefully this will bring about a more transparent government" lol. Never said it would happen. Yeaaaash
I'll be enjoying the show from Canada however it turns out. Hopefully someone will speak up for your rights btw.
Have fun :D
joe7845Dec 30, 2010
If Assange is proven to be a reptilian alien, he also won't be remembered as Gandhi or Mandella. Good point (not).
cosmicsurferDec 30, 2010
Another conspiracy theorist heard from....
njdoo7Dec 31, 2010
You do realize what a conspiracy is right?
I'll provide a definition for assistance:
"an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot."
Conspiracies take place every day. Ignoring them as a explanation for how certain events takes place shows an ignorance in understanding how the world has worked for thousands of years.
laborerDec 31, 2010
^ THIS!!! As much as the right wing talks about the left being the dreamers, it must be difficult for them to fathom that their walking backwards being totally counter to where reality is taking humanity. The tides of man wanting more freedom, prosperity, education and control of their own lives has always risen in past history. This will be the way it is forever.
spectecjrDec 30, 2010
Presumably, you also feel the same about Glen Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and any politician who lied their way into a position of power this election cycle.
davidtcDec 31, 2010
Presumably when you say "any politician who lied" you also mean every Dem too.
Balzac__Dec 31, 2010
Who is Alanocu? Is that your name? Would you put your given name on a call for someone to be murdered?
davidnivenDec 30, 2010
I thought that there were lots of people who said that free speech is not absolute. I mean, they say that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Why is this case any different in principle?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rudegarDec 30, 2010
but how is it different then the watergate leak and exposure ?
norman619Dec 30, 2010
Watergate was about exposing a breaking and entering. A crime. It is not the same. I hope you aren't really that simple.
rudegarDec 30, 2010
no it was about exposing an illegal wire-tab on the political opposition
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
Releasing the video of the helicopter attack on civilians was on the same level as watergate and i fully support wiki-leaks in that instance. However, releasing diplomatic cables serves no useful purpose. Private conversations between diplomats is not being "covered up" and should not be transparent. The sensitive targets list was also dangerous and security should not be transparent. Asange weakens his case when that type of information is released.
triptasticDec 30, 2010
I disagree it serves no purpose. Everyone can now see this dog and pony show for what it is. How can anyone think mature, intelligent people run our governments now? They have all been exposed as greedy, corrupt, petty individuals with power and status controlling their decisions, not the welfare of their represented people and states.
skztrDec 30, 2010
yeah, but can you yell "REDACTED!" in a crowded theatre?
joe7845Dec 30, 2010
Think about why yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech:
1. It's false (knowingly).
2. It's not intended to inform or reveal, but solely to create panic.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
It's still free speech. The crime comes from the action of creating panic.
davidtcDec 31, 2010
So the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't have free speech?
They stuff they say is false.
It's not intended to inform or reveal, but solely to create panic and anger.
If you think a that a belief protects that, then couldn't someone say they believed they did see a fire?
njdoo7Dec 30, 2010
You can't be serious...Sadly you probably are.. we can start by highlighting the simple fact that yelling "fire" in a theater is not the same in principle as sharing / reporting information (speaking truth).
njdoo7Dec 30, 2010
To call these two actions the same in principle, is like saying an armed murderer is acting no different in principle than an armed man who stops him from murdering more people.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
That analogy is entirely wrong. You are allowed to yell fire as you do have freedom of speech. However inciting panic by using your free speech is a punishable crime.
As long as Assange did not directly conspire with a person to get the information he has, he did not commit espionage. If he conspired with a person to go and get that information, well he really f**ked up there if they find proof of it.
isenborgDec 30, 2010
Dear Mr. Meerpol,
Your parents were spies. All children of criminals feel their parents were wrongly accused. It's called a coping mechanism.
rotfoxDec 30, 2010
Dear Mr. Isenborg
I really enjoyed the way that you trampled on that mans hope and innocence. I love the way that you just brushed aside all his feeling regardless of innocents or not. I mean just watching how you, with no evidence, just sentenced his deceased parents of being spies was glorious.
/s
Learn a little tact, could make you some friends.
norman619Dec 30, 2010
FTA:
"I view the Espionage Act of 1917 as a lifelong nemesis. My parents were charged, tried and ultimately executed after being indicted for Conspiracy to Commit Espionage under that act."
This is sad. He refuses to see the fact that his parents were spies who had their day in court and were found guilty and paid for their crime. Maybe he thinks it was the one armed man who did it?
fx666Dec 30, 2010
Are your parents the Rosenbergs? This is the only couple I heard about who were found guilty of espionage and executed.
zathros2Dec 31, 2010
Yes. His parents were the Rosenbergs. They were convicted of giving atomic weapon secrets to the USSR.
pppmktDec 31, 2010
Spoken like someone who has little or no experience with the judicial system. Blind faith will definitely take you far; after a few slaps upside your head. Innocent people are incarcerated everyday. Until it's you, everything is just hunky-dory isn't it?
banderwockyDec 30, 2010
Really? A dated 'law' from 1917 is what they are going to go after them with? Seems like this administration is really no different than the Bush Regime.
I think the rest of the modern world need to pass laws that state "f**k you US, you don't get to charge our citizens with s**t".
geroncoDec 30, 2010
He raped someone, why should we protect him? Maybe we should give him a nice place to hide, called Guantanamo, where our version of water sports is a little bit different than Australia.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joe7845Dec 30, 2010
"He raped someone,"
False. Show me the charges. Indeed, if Sweden ever decides to charge Assange with anything, it might be sexual molestation or some such.
1ny0urfac3Dec 30, 2010
Yeah, so far all I've seen were allegations. Where's the proof?
Were the two women he slept with coerced by...associates of the U.S.?
We don't know, yet. But I believe he deserves a fair trial. The evidence should be shown and made known. All this is doing is ruining his reputation (not). Either way, the U.S. is acting like children with this situation. They should not blame him for their faults, after all, it was they who've committed and allowed such crimes to happen in the first place.
I recommend to readers to research into the Espionage Act of 1917.
You can clearly see, many people were wrongfully and unconstitutionally rounded up for using their 1st amendment rights, and declared as anarchists. Many immigrants were deported also.
(don't flame me, just trying to be civil ;D)
I also recommend reading "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress" By Howard Zinn. It details the unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act, and many faults we have in modern societies.
njdoo7Dec 30, 2010
You obviously haven't researched the rape allegations.
pppmktDec 31, 2010
That qualifies as typical of blowhards everywhere.
TheTruth00Dec 30, 2010
**Yes let's protect Mr. Assange. Let's side against the Government. Sounds like a swell idea. Let's get together a gigantic following and protest. Yayyy, free speech, go wikileaks, go**
... None of you complain when the Government fights back and starts packing in regulations, i.e. cutting off, monitoring, inhibiting more activity on the internet
OrlandoAlexDec 30, 2010
The article makes a fine point about the questionable constitutionality of the Espionage Act. Whether you support Assange's efforts or not, it's worth considering that his anticipated indictment would lead to greater scrutiny of the act and potential challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court.
miklkitDec 30, 2010
Challenge these supremes? This gang thinks corporations are people.
OrlandoAlexDec 30, 2010
That's true -- it could get interesting.
bdbrDec 30, 2010
"Rumors are swirling that the United States is preparing to indict Wikileaks leader Julian Assange for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act of 1917."
If you want to protect him from rumors, stop posting rumors.
njdoo7Dec 30, 2010
I am going to be honest, I didn't read the article...but I will still make a very valid point relating to some other comments.
People saying things like "his parents were spies...". This may or may not be a real representation of what his parents did, but I challenge you to research what the espionage act has been used for. If you do objective research, I don't see how you could think it contributes to freedom in any way, shape, or form..the same way the patriot act does the opposite of promoting freedom.
miklkitDec 30, 2010
It's been a day since I read the article, but methinks his parents belonged to the Communist Party.
pppmktDec 31, 2010
And there was no ruse involved between our two factions was there?
lpezzDec 30, 2010
I am almost as liberal as they come, but I cannot have any admiration for this guy. Exposing injustice? Fine- it should be done more. Stirring the pot unnecessarily? That is what the release of the diplomatic cables appears to me to be. If his motives were pure, why do that?
And I will go ahead and admit that I think he looks and sounds like a creeper.
njdoo7Dec 30, 2010
This is one of the more troubling parts of this whole fiasco. There are a lot of things that do not logically add up.
It's one of the things that makes me wonder if Assange is just a "useful idiot," for lack of a better term, for a covert intelligence operation. There are a number of things that make me and many others suspect this. Time and more research will tell, but this may be something you want to consider.
Webster Tarpley and Wayne Madsen talk about this (you can probably google some videos to hear their logic/reasons) and are more certain than I currently am, but I have to be honest I haven't spent much time checking their sources and whatnot.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
Could not agree with you anymore.
joe7845Dec 30, 2010
"Stirring the pot unnecessarily? That is what the release of the diplomatic cables appears to me to be."
If you think that, you're not paying attention. It's totally in the public interest to know much of what the cables have exposed, e.g. Pfizer's alleged attempt to smear Nigeria's attorney general.
stinkypete312Dec 30, 2010
what f**king ignorance. let's just make it so that all of our national security secrets can be released with impunity and without fear of reprisal. god knows spewing out all of our secrets can only make our country safer.
what a bunch bunch of tools.
enssssDec 30, 2010
Leaks in the U.S. government happen all the time. The difference is that a private is accused of doing it and doing it bigger than ever done before and also without benefit to himself.
Whoever did this could have just sent the information directly to some country or entity that is an enemy, but instead it was sent to an entity that publishes it for the people of the world. I don't consider the people of the world the enemy. The governments that are blocking their citizens from viewing the leaked documents seem like an enemy to me. These include China and Iran. The U.S. government blocks some of its employees from viewing the leaked documents for some reason I don't understand, but I think it wants to protect them from them truth.
claymoredethDec 30, 2010
One big flaw with your argument: Julian Assange is releasing illegally obtained classified documents. No matter what part of the political spectrum you find yourself in, the simple fact is that the guy has broken the law.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joe7845Dec 30, 2010
Nonsense. All classified documents ever published in the media without authorization were obtained illegally. Stealing documents might be illegal under certain circumstances, but publishing them? Nope. You need to read about the Pentagon Papers.
Indeed, Nixon believed that the NYT was breaking the law by publishing the Pentagon Papers after the government had told them not to, but he was completely wrong in a historical sense. Just like you are.
proteus8898Dec 30, 2010
Posts full of blatant logic errors and just plain incorrect information like this are heavily concentrated in the side for our government's corruption and secrets and against Assange's championing freedom of the press. It has never, ever been illegal to report or release the contents of classified documents. It is, however, illegal to steal documents, and is illegal to release classified information if you are a state worker or enlisted in the military (in some ways you sign away your 1st amendment right). Please get your facts together or further your education before taking such a strong stance on the wrong side of this argement.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
There's a very fine line between journalism and conspiracy to commit espionage. If he in anyway worked with the person to cause the documents to be stolen then may very well be guilty under the espionage act. However from everything that is available so far there is nothing to support this.
uu2bDec 31, 2010
How does the NYTimes or WaPo or any other person write an article about classified information? Does the story just show up on their doorstep? In Wikileaks case, yes..via upload.
Most newspapers, historically required two sources (or documentation) to publish an article with classified information.
Bob Woodward coerced individuals in the government to leak, confirm, or deny classified (Top Secret) information.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39693850/ns/us_news-security/
If you really want to know just about all there is to know regarding Wikileaks/First Amendment stuff, I recommend Glenn Greenwald's blog.
Simply a brilliant writer, and should be required reading for all: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
lamadave222Dec 30, 2010
Perhaps Julian has just been duped. As to Meeropol, his parent's philosophy was and is violent and exclusionary, to pretend otherwise is delusional.
pacocrowleyDec 30, 2010
How lovely, the digg community discussing issues that they can't take part of. "I hate hime, burn him!" "He's our new saviour" "He's wrong because bla bla bla"
tehfludDec 30, 2010
How many lives is one man worth? He hasn't done anything righteous. He got a large bundle of information, didn't even bother sorting through it, and released it to the public compromising the lives of an innumerable number people.
deffDec 31, 2010
Actually, he didn't just release it to the public. He sent it off to media outlets like The Guardian and the New York Times to help sift through the information and redact facts that might put people at risk.
tehfludJan 2, 2011
Right... or was that his contingency plan to the DoS attack on wikileaks? And then it was subsequently posted on wikileaks...
skyislandDec 30, 2010
Being able to hold truth to light is the only hope the Earth has to go on living.. Freedom of speech needs protection and access to information is key.. Leaders and everyone needs to know the internet can be used to hold people to account. People who make that possible are the good guys.
alienkidDec 31, 2010
Hey I want to have the most down diggs for a comment so can you down digg this for me please?
If you need some motivation I offer these words "f**k Assange" and I love Sarah Palin, and Obama is a marxist socialist kenyan muslim.
readmymindDec 31, 2010
Right now I doubt there's anything the Wikileaks haters can do to undo their deliriously bad handling of the situation. It has been a huge overreaction with no proof at all that there are actually 250,000 cables to be released. Less than 1 percent of that number has been released so far. Do the other cables even exist? Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, the reaction has been terrible. Drumming up charges so far afterwords is unethical, pure and simple. What Wikileaks has done is not in any way-shape-or-form a terrorist act or worthy of death threats. If anyone should be locked up, it is those who feel it is within their moral boundaries to threaten other people with death. They are the one who are a danger to society. The odds are better than anything that when all is said and done, Wikileaks will have saved far more lives than will have been lost.
quebecoishistoryDec 31, 2010
The problem here is that the punishment did not fit the crime. The Rosenbergs were guilty of passing information to the Soviets. The problem is, and the fact got mysteriously lost, the information that was stolen for the A- bomb was totally useless to the Soviets, who had already developed an A-bomb by the time the Rosenbergs obtained the information. This is probably the best example of over kill, literally, in legal history.
officialchokeDec 31, 2010
He's in jail for sex crimes, nothing more. Get over yourselves.
uu2bDec 31, 2010
I would love to see your source for that information. And, no, being jailed for questioning due an accusation of sex crimes is not the same.
officialchokeDec 31, 2010
here ya go... perhaps you should try and use google once in a while. Im now done with you.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wikileaks-julian-assange-arrested-britain-sex-crimes/story?id=12330526
uu2bDec 31, 2010
God you are such a f**king moron. Read my post, then the first sentence of your post:
"A British judge today ordered WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange held without bail today on four charges related to a Swedish sex crimes investigation"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
officialchokeDec 31, 2010
Im the f**king moron, wheres your post.. huh s**thead. I wasn't talking to you... remember this s**thead you attacked me first. so shut your f**king piehole I wasn't f**king talking to you in the first place. So get off your f**king high horse and f**k off!!! plain and simple. how you like that for cussing Happy f**king newyear... assh**e
rcook18Dec 31, 2010
Attorney General Holder's fascination with identifying US citizens as terrorists scares me in the same way the Red scare of the 40s and 50s does -- keeping fodder for the war machine and driving down wages is more import than citizens' constitutional rights.
In Florida, they say sunshine for government is the best disinfectant and it may be that a very large part of Julian Assange's revelations fit into the governmental disinfectant category.
pwrxDec 31, 2010
So a person has tons of sensitive information that the public 'has a right to see'. This person selects which portions of the whole he'd like the public to see now, which portions later, and which portions should remain hidden. Further, this person holds on to the 'real juicy' information and uses it as a threat/blackmail to deter the original information holders from retaliating to the leak. This is a hero?
Ask yourself this: Would you support a Wikileaks-leaks site? A site that was leaked the full content that Assange is holding and leaked it all at once? If so, you have to acknowledge Assange is in a position with no accountability and choosing what the masses can see himself - a censor. Otherwise no need to leak the leak.
If you wouldn't support someone leaking the full wikileaks content, why not?
uu2bDec 31, 2010
If he (or others at WL) don't censor, then I could just 'shop a picture of me and your mom and put it on the internet. Or I could just use the real ones...either way, the information coming out of Wikileaks would be useless and no one would pay attention. There has to be some level of censorship, that argument can always be used...kinda like the "Assange won't post cables regarding Israel" meme. Someone will always have a problem with it being filtered at all. There's no evidence that he's censoring anything, and based on our government and their pet media's hysteria, he doing it right.
Even now, no one really is paying attention...at least in the media.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks/index.html I have heard maybe two minutes of half of these Wikileaks revelations on any news channels, except for the BBC.
jzumariDec 31, 2010
I really admire Julian Assange's courage
whiteravenDec 31, 2010
Sharing state secrets fits squarely within the "aid and comfort" clause. But of course, Assange is not a US citizen and so can not really be tried with treason. He can most certainly be charged with espionage.
rustycawleyJan 1, 2011
The Espionage Act should be put out its misery. It's a relic from the Wilson years. There's no place for it in an open society.