Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Miguel Lopez
27114 Followers
whitedream2
234 Followers
SpionKopRed
2326 Followers
gorgeoussand
8413 Followers
Vladimir Bundalo
3031 Followers
Mark Fuller
848 Followers
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
Not a bad idea. If they don't, you can expect more leaks in the future.
BTW....Treason is punishable by death. But of course, that was years ago when America was populated with REAL men, as opposed to the neutered, feminized girlie-men that populate America these days.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Dec 1, 2010
You shouldn't hang out in those kind of bars then.
casspaDec 1, 2010
Its not treason, he's not American.
stromprommerDec 1, 2010
Army Private First Class Bradley Manning certainly is.
Tier4Dec 1, 2010
I find the first people to want to resort to violence, are, just like you and Bill here, always the people that want someone else to do it for them. Yet you think that somehow that makes you a "man". Sad.
isa9191Dec 1, 2010
YAH!!! Real men who... umm... comment anonymously on the internet complaining how America is populated by girlie men... I think its spelt girly though.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
thats right wikileaks are the criminals, not the actual criminals that all they did was report on.
synchroDec 1, 2010
Technically both are. The ones for doing it and the others for leaking it.
davidtcDec 1, 2010
So did anyone watch the video and find where O'Reilly mentioned anything along the lines of execution? I figured it would be in the video that is apart of the short article about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Dec 1, 2010
At 0:10 mins.
fubemanDec 1, 2010
Yes, it's in the first 30 seconds into the clip: "Whoever leaked those documents is a traitor and should be executed or put into prison for life."
davidtcDec 1, 2010
Hmmmm. Guess that what happens at 5am without going to bed. Completely missed that =/
delphium226Dec 1, 2010
*Yawn* the usual yappy dogs applying their selective morality to a situation. How many lives have demonstrably been lost because of the last 2 major leaks?
dannyhirtlerDec 1, 2010
LOL at Bill O'Reilly
bonestampDec 1, 2010
He's an internet troll and he's not even on the internet.
dannyhirtlerDec 1, 2010
You know, when you put it like that it actually sounds kind of impressive lol
markglDec 1, 2010
Yeah, it's called treason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
eckDec 1, 2010
From your link: "In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation."
Julian Assange isn't a US citizen, therefore he cannot be charged with treason. The leakers could be, but that's not what all the fuss is about, is it?
markglDec 1, 2010
We're not talking about Assange, we're talking about whomever leaked the material to Assange. Bill's referring to the leakers of the information. There wouldn't be any fuss if the leakers didn't leak the information they had.
eckDec 1, 2010
In this particular segment, you're right. But most of the media's coverage has focused on Assange and usually condemns the platform he provides for the leaks.
linuxpersonDec 1, 2010
Unless there is some type of incentive involved, even if Assange were a US citizen it would not be treason to report facts.
Whoever leaked the information may be guilty of treason, but Assange is simply exercising his right to free speech. Call it poor judgement if you want, but it's not treason.
ventralnetDec 1, 2010
It isn't treason. He isn't a US citizen. He could be considered, however, an enemy of the state since he is affecting the US national security
markglDec 1, 2010
Ah yes good point. Assange isn't a citizen so no he cant. But Bill isn't referring to Assange, he said the wikileakers the person or persons who leaked the info to Assange. An American or Americans possibly, I have no idea where this data came from, leaked the information to wikileaks, so there is a possible American that has just committed treason.
superman101Dec 1, 2010
All they did was leak documents to a website. Doing that was not
"actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
They did commit crimes, but not be put to death that is pretty outrageous.
markglDec 1, 2010
I disagree.
superman101Dec 1, 2010
Why do you disagree? What do you disagree with? That they committed crimes ;-P? That they should be put to death ? or that their actions helped a foreign government overthrow or make war?
hipmanDec 1, 2010
"All they did was leak documents to a website"??Are you a moron or something?.That is a very serious crime.
superman101Dec 1, 2010
Not arguing that what they did isn't serious, but I am arguing that their actions were not to help a foreign government overthrow the United States. And therefore, not treason.
QED
yibbutkeenDec 1, 2010
@superman101
but it probably will seriously injure the nation diplomatically. not to mention some of these documents could result in revealing clandestine sources who could be executed for working with the US government. If someone dies as a result of these leaks, the person who gave the info to wikileaks could very well face execution, and unlike our civilian courts, military courts are more efficient.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisDec 1, 2010
@superman101
Treason isn't "intent", it's actions. The actions performed here are treasonous. I couldn't care less if the intent was to make a more safe and open world. The actions help other nations kill American informants and our soldiers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Schweppesale2Dec 2, 2010
Have you people even stopped to ask yourselves why we're at war to begin with? The 911 attacks happened almost a decade ago.
How many thousands of US soldiers where killed in Iraq in search of WOMD? I'll give you a hint, it was way more than your government was reporting.
How many Iraqi deaths where actually insurgents vs innocent civilians. I'll give you a hint, most of them didn't carry guns.
How do I know this? Because of mother f--king Wikileaks, that's how.
We have freedom of speech, the First Amendment; in place to protect us against exactly this type of abuse.
The leaks are going to cause death? That's f--king laughable. First there was Vietnam, then there was Iraq, now there's "The War on Terror".
They openly tell us to our face that it's "not a conventional war" and that it can last indefinitely.
That doesn't sound suspicious to you?
Corporations are now capable of making "unlimited" campaign contributions and you're still not questioning the integrity of those you put into office?
Seriously.
If you still insist that these people should be cut down then get the fu-k out of my country. It's as simple as that.
You don't deserve to be here.
ncmusicDec 2, 2010
@ultimis good thing you aren't a lawyer, judge, or otherwise employed to interpret and/or enforce the law.
ultimisDec 2, 2010
@ncmusic
You think the person/people responsible won't be punished? I doubt they will be convicted of treason as that really doesn't happen. That doesn't mean they shouldn't.
It's also a good thing that your opinion doesn't amount to s**t as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicDec 2, 2010
Saying they should be charged with treason but that they won't be is the problem. Since you or I aren't really qualified to make that decision. But, as of now he's not been charged with treason.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
"...seriously injure the [parent nation]."
ncmusicDec 2, 2010
But then all the chicken heads would have to prove the US was "seriously injured". But that information is probably a state secret.
ultimisDec 1, 2010
Revealing information about our military operations and state department helps foreign governments make war against us. There is a reason why these things are classified as "secret". The person who leaked this information probably had clearance, meaning at the very least he/she will spend the rest of his/her life in federal prison. But yes, this is treason. As such; capital punishment for such a crime.
ncmusicDec 2, 2010
Then why isn't manning being charged for treason if it's so cut and dry?
studiopenguinDec 1, 2010
Mark, you seem like a pretty reasonable guy, so I'm going to try to reason with you.
If the issue were as black and white as "disclosure of state secrets" then I would agree with you that we're talking about treason. That being said, this issue isn't even remotely black and white.
America is set up so that its citizens are the rulers. Our government is comprised of citizens who were elected by fellow citizens to serve all of us. Unfortunately, the citizens we've elected have started cutting the rest of us out of the decision-making process. Those elected citizens didn't tell us that we had started waterboarding suspected terrorists, or that we were having our diplomats spy on the U.N., or that China is fed up with North Korea... and that's just to name a few things we were surprised to learn in the last few years.
If people like you and me are really in charge of this country -- and the constitution makes it explicitly clear that we're supposed to be -- don't we need information like this in order to make decisions and vote accordingly? If our elected officials aren't telling us where we stand with our allies and enemies, and if our elected officials aren't telling us what policies they're enacting with the authority that you and I gave them, we lose our control over our government. Against that backdrop of lost liberty, a citizen choosing to release that information through the free press -- while certainly illegal -- could be viewed as a noble and patriotic act.
Just something for you to think about.
jeworldDec 1, 2010
Very well said.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
Before you get your panties in a bunch over Assange maybe the US should arrest, charge and try the ones responsible for all the US war crimes over the past decade?
If the US don';t arrest and Charge George W. Bush. Dick Cheney, D. Rumsfeld et al and charge them with war crimes, crimes against humanity and try them, I see no reason to go after Assange.
Get the REAL criminals first - THEN we can talk!
Until then - go f**k yourself, USA!
miklkitDec 1, 2010
Agreed! There is a huge body of evidence confirming that bush/cheney committed crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes, and also treason. They are unrepentant mass murderers.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study?_s=PM:POLITICS
markglDec 1, 2010
Ah yes we cannot forget to have to the America is the war criminal argument in here. Can't leave that out.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
Waterboarding is classified as torture - Bush bragged about using waterboading - Bush is guilty of torture, his own confession is on tape. People have been convicted to life in prison for waterboarding since it's torture.
Your turn!
markglDec 1, 2010
No yeah sure.
ultimisDec 1, 2010
This is a Republic. Not a democracy. Sorry to bust your bubble. We elect people to make decisions on our behave. If this was a true Greek type democracy then I would agree with your assessment with our need to know. This isn't. We are a nation of laws and representation. In the case diplomacy and interrogation you don't need to know. Unless of course it is in violation of the constitution.
So If the government decided it was going to implement a advanced wire tapping method in China, they sure the hell are not going to announce it.
studiopenguinDec 1, 2010
This is a representative democracy. We elect our representatives based on who we believe will enact policy we support. If we don't know what policies are being enacted by our representatives, our elections are mere pageantry.
You should go read the Wikipedia entry on the word "republic" before you toss it around. A "republic" and "democracy" are in no sense mutually exclusive nor contradictory terms.
ultimisDec 1, 2010
We have democratic actions in this country (state propositions, voting). But our country is not a democracy. It doesn't matter if there are similarities between a Republic and a Democracy; they are different. A republic government is specific in how the country is run.
wiki: A republic is a form of government in which the citizens choose their leaders and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.
We elect leaders, not puppets.
studiopenguinDec 1, 2010
Question: do you understand that The United States, Iran, China, and North Korea are all republics?
ultimisDec 1, 2010
Iran: Theocracy
North Korea: One Party, communist run state.
China: One Party, communist run state.
Each time you post the less I want to respond to you. If you are unable to choose the person you want to serve as a leader, it is not a Republic. Iran is a semi Republic, though the true power lies in the religious government. The "president" is subservient to the supreme leader. Religious law is it's foundation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
studiopenguinDec 1, 2010
Here's why I asked. You're confusing a country's form of government with its political system. A republic is a form of government. Democracy is a political system.
All four of the countries I listed are republics. America is a constitutional republic. Iran is an Islamic republic. North Korea and China are people's republics.
A country can be both a democracy and a republic.
A country can be both a theocracy and a republic.
A country can be both a communist state and a republic.
Saying that "our country is a republic, not a democracy" is as meaningless as a saying "I'm wearing a garment, not a pair of pants."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
ultimisDec 1, 2010
democracy: majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
And no it can't be both, as a Republic allows it's people to choose it's leaders. Theocracy does not (religious rule), communism does not (one party, you can't elect people outside that party). The democratic governance does not have leaders, the people vote on everything. A Republic such as is bound by the constitution, a nation of laws. A simple majority cannot change the constitution. But propositions on the state level can.
Essentially you're pretty much using the definition of what a Republic is and stating that it is a democracy. Or maybe you're just confusing the concept of being allowed to vote as making it a democracy.
Why does this even matter? Look at the Roman Republic before the emperor, did they reveal all their information to the people? Then look at the democracy of Greece, where mob rule could have someone killed. We have courts in a Republic.
A oligarchy is where all nations are the same. We have a few making decisions for the many. That doesn't make them all Republics.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
studiopenguinDec 2, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Please read this. Please. It's important that people understand how governments -- including their own -- are structured. It won't take long. Please read it.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
I agree that the leak is basically treason (I'm not going to investigate the formal definition of treason at the moment, since it's not what I'm concerned with anyway.. but what has happened is certainly along those line).
It will shake things up considerably and change the course of events in unpredictable ways, to the point that it will at times cause certain people to die prematurely, and others to not die prematurely. I believe that in the end, the unpredictable will far outweigh the more predictable (such as the sources of leaked comments being assassinated).
Governments try to remain competitive and to protect their own interests in part by deterring people from leaking secrets. I find this understandable, and it is the most conservative (in a reasonable sort of sense - not the US political sense) stance at the moment. At this time however, I feel that the US government is having a hard time coming to terms with how geopolitics is changing. I believe that at this point, the long-term interest of Americans is best protected by a healthy and comfortable human population across the globe, and the most important concerns are now shared globally. Now that borders and access to resources have opened up, why is there still a large faction in the US government trying to protect global American dominance? Is this even meaningful anymore? Is it cohesive with the strategy of openness? Does it really serve the interests of individuals? The US appears to be having growing pains in coming to terms with this, and I do wonder if this particular leak may help them adjust to it more quickly.
Unless they have put more thought into the release than I can imagine, I personally find it somewhat reckless that the release was made.. but I don't find it at all difficult to believe that it was made with good intent, and I find it very likely that it will be for the best.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
I should point out.. Assange isn't American. The American (presuming an American did it) who leaked it would be the one who committed treason.
linuxpersonDec 1, 2010
Reporting facts is not treason. Even if Assange were American, unless he was bribing people to leak information, he is guilty of no crime.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
Reporting facts is neither necessarily not treason. It has nothing specifically to do with truth or lies. Conflating treason with truth or any sort of morality can be particularly confusing, because it almost seems that it should have something to do with it.
It is not at all about truth, but rather about betrayal and/or undermining of your country's interests or, at times, violation of an agreement or oath that may have been taken.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
I now think your point was to say that further distributing information that someone in a position of responsibility leaked is not a crime. This is similar to how violating an NDA can get you sued.. but if you never signed an NDA and you get a hold of some information that would be under NDA for employees of an organization, you are not held to the NDA.
It's a good point and I think it applies in some way.. but it is still possible for actions to be treason without such a leak. Treason remains a separate construct to that of illegally disclosing secrets (which is potentially a separate crime - though it also possible to be guilty of both for a single action). IANAL, but that's my understanding.
linuxpersonDec 1, 2010
"Treason remains a separate construct to that of illegally disclosing secrets"
If somebody who is obligated to protect secret information discloses it to another person, it is no longer secret. Further, if the secrets were disclosed without coercion or incentive, then whoever the secrets were disclosed to has every right to spread that information.
Again, you might call it bad judgement to spread information that could result in blood shed, but it should not be considered a criminal offense.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
@linuxperson:
If somebody who is obligated to protect secret information discloses it to another person, it is no longer secret.
Agreed. I tried to say that.
Further, if the secrets were disclosed without coercion or incentive, then whoever the secrets were disclosed to has every right to spread that information.
Well, in terms of violating a rule against disclosing a secret, yes. You may be correct that this would be the case in the end as well, on constitutional grounds. Do not forget that there are cases where this still isn't true in every sense. Copyrights are an example (though that's civil), and treason remains something that I don't believe specifically addresses secrets vs public knowledge (there are separate laws, or for the army, regulations for that). I am not American, but in my understanding, treason may be encoded using words such as "aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war". Some would argue that this occurred in this case, and that Assange is culpable because he's an intelligent guy who can understand this. There are gray areas and interpretations.. and if someone thinks it's important enough, even constitutions can be interpreted liberally. Whether or not someone would be found guilty in the end could be up to the skills of lawyers and the whims of judges. There can be argument about what treason is, and the precedent can change.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
Why can I not reply anymore? Digg is broken?
linuxpersonDec 1, 2010
@blagoaw
According to your definition of treason, it would be impossible to commit right now considering that war has not be declared by Congress.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
I'm replying here, because Digg keeps killing my replies down the hierarchy.
"If somebody who is obligated to protect secret information discloses it to another person, it is no longer secret."
Agreed.
"Further, if the secrets were disclosed without coercion or incentive, then whoever the secrets were disclosed to has every right to spread that information."
If doing so does not violate another law. The constitution may actually protect this sort of communication.. but you'd have to see what the judge thinks.
"Again, you might call it bad judgement to spread information that could result in blood shed, but it should not be considered a criminal offense."
Key word: "should". Considering the values of the US, I agree with you there. For things to be otherwise leaves a painful contradiction that will continue to be an issue.
blagoawDec 1, 2010
I should mentioned threats, libel, treason. These are at least three cases where what would normally expected to be protected speech runs against a law.
tigeronthewallDec 1, 2010
"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." -Julian Assange when asked about 9/11
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/212302-Wanted-by-the-CIA-The-man-who-keeps-no-secrets
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
He's a truther?
sabz5150Dec 1, 2010
He could be saying that there is no conspiracy behind 9/11, however so many people focus upon it rather than the real conspiracies around us.
In that regard, he is 100% correct. What do Americans care about more... the financial fraud that brought down the global economy or Obama's birth certificate?
ncmusicDec 2, 2010
From that quote he's explicitly not a truther.
atb12688Dec 1, 2010
The execution of Hillary Clintion would be much more reasonable (although not really at all), considering her incompetence lead to these issues.
mrnaturalDec 1, 2010
O'Reilly is a gasbag. Him calling for assassination of Assange is probably the best defense wikileaks has. I'm still not sure whose side I'm on in this fiasco. Maybe our State Department really wanted this stuff out to get public opinion on their side. Hillary is capable of some devious s**t...We all know that to be a fact!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrrockstarDec 1, 2010
Then I call for the execution of Bill O'Reilly, it's only fair.
revcorruptDec 1, 2010
Ohh come on, Really.. guh.. I am getting sick of this..
revcorruptDec 1, 2010
Ohh come on, Really.. guh.. I am getting sick of this..
qwed88Dec 1, 2010
Then Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, should be executed, they've all done more to hurt the U.S. government and Democracy than Wikileaks has.
Since when did the United States, start declaring news sources as terrorist organizations?
Absurd. That's a very scary sign.
miklkitDec 1, 2010
The republicon Ministry of Propaganda has been calling for the assassination of anyone with different viewpoints for years. Here is one calling for the assassination of our President months before he was even elected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/fox-pundit-wishes-for-oba_b_103500.html
n8f8Dec 1, 2010
Espionage
029aDec 1, 2010
U MAD!
chomskyknows2Dec 1, 2010
to the idiots saying "treason", treason is always an internal concept to one's own country concerned. obviously wikileaks is not an american organization, nor is it's main dude american. so right there, you're dumb.
and oh btw, truth is treason?
markglDec 1, 2010
Dammit listen to what he says! The leakers not Assanage. How many times must we go thru this on this article???
dgopoDec 1, 2010
Of course he would want to execute them, why not? This guy stole my parking spot yesterday, I really wish O'Reilly was there to shoot him in the face
yourbrokenovenDec 1, 2010
Sounds like premeditation to me.
dcwriterDec 1, 2010
Wikipedia founder comments on WikiLeaks: www.thelantern.com/campus/alum-speaks-out-against-wikileaks-1.1813044
cantholditdownDec 1, 2010
Do we also get to execute Scooter Libby!! What fun!
bdbrDec 1, 2010
This isn't about Assange, but the person who leaked the documents.
I don't think people should be allowed to leak classified information and get off scott-free, but the punishment should fit the crime. If all this did was embarrass some diplomats and "expose" things that were already known or widely suspected, execution or life in prison is way too extreme.
ferretmanDec 1, 2010
You KNOW that isn't what he did....he said they should be tried for treason. One OPTION under a finding of guilty is execution (by firing squad, I think).
frayedknotjeffDec 1, 2010
Wow these Christian conservatives really want to see blood, what is with their lust for blood? You'd think they would be all Christ like instead and fight for truth.
I see your true colors shining through.
markglDec 1, 2010
Where did that come from?
frayedknotjeffDec 1, 2010
Bill O' is one who talks the Christian talk but, as it seems on this video and many others, doesn't walk the Christian walk.
Amirite?! Ha high five!
markglDec 1, 2010
Whats the Christian walk?
frayedknotjeffDec 1, 2010
Are you a Christian?
markglDec 1, 2010
Yeah aren't you?
frayedknotjeffDec 1, 2010
No I'm an Atheist. That's why I wear the scarlet letter A in front of my profile name. You don't know the Christian walk?
Christian walk pertaining to the discussion.
Ten Commandments.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not kill.
Matthew 5:44
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
John 8:32
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
This man Assange told the truth, now Bill the self described Christian wants to see him killed for showing all of us truth. Not very Christian walky walk there.
jimbo92107Dec 1, 2010
WikiLeaks turned me into a newt!
...But I got better...
youareretardedDec 1, 2010
I don't the answer so maybe someone else can answer for me; did Bill call for the execution of the American Anwar al-Awlaki?