Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) granted asylum

[Drummond]

It's a foreign news story (to most of the people here ..) ... though becoming a major one on this side of the Pond.

It might be of interest, partly because of all the damage Assange tried to do with 'Wikileaks' to both our countries' reputations, but also because the current situation puts our authorities in a bit of a bind ... see ...

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/assange-granted-asylum-what-happens-now/


Shortly after 1.30pm on Thursday, Ecuador announced that it had granted political asylum to Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder wanted by Sweden to face questioning over alleged sex offences.

Twenty minutes later, the UK foreign office responded by restating its threat to extract Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has been living since seeking refuge eight weeks ago.

Ecuador has requested that Assange be given safe passage out of the embassy, while the UK has said it will arrest him as soon as he sets foot outside the building.

So what happens now?

Here are four possible outcomes:

1) Julian Assange is allowed to travel to Ecuador, after a diplomatic settlement is reached between the UK and Ecuadorian governments

At the time of writing, this seems unlikely.

Both countries are taking an uncompromising stance. "The British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite [Julian Assange] to Sweden," said a foreign office spokesman on Thursday. "We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian government's decision this afternoon does not change that."

In return, Ecuador has accused the UK of making an "open threat" by insisting on its right to enter the country's embassy to arrest Mr Assange.

In its statement granting Mr Assange asylum, the country said: "We can state that there is a risk that [Assange] will be persecuted politically... We trust the UK will offer the necessary guarantees so that both governments can act adequately and properly respect international rights and the right of asylum. We also trust the excellent relationship the two countries have will continue."

2) Julian Assange manages to escape the embassy and travel to Ecuador

This would be a very dramatic conclusion to the affair, and one that would cause great embarrassment to the UK government.

Officers from the Metropolitan Police are waiting outside the embassy, and would presumably try and catch him if they saw him trying to escape.

However if Mr Assange made it into a diplomatic car, legally he is protected. Diplomatic cars enjoy protection in international law from "search, requisition, attachment and execution". So while police could stop the car, they would not have the power to search it for Mr Assange.

The next issue would arise if and when the car reached an airport. The moment Mr Assange left the car, he would be liable for arrest. Somehow the car would need to drive directly into an aircraft, presumably of a military kind, that would then need to take off before any authorities were able to get on board.

An alternative scenario would involve Mr Assange somehow being smuggled out of the embassy, perhaps in some kind of crate or trunk. But UK authorities would be able to impound such an object were they convinced that Mr Assange was inside.

3) Julian Assange decides to give himself up to the UK authorities

Having spent eight weeks living in the Ecuadorian embassy, Mr Assange may simply decide that he has had enough and is happy to face the judicial process of extradition.

At the moment, this seems unlikely.

On hearing the news, Mr Assange reportedly said: "It is a significant victory for myself, and my people. Things will probably get more stressful now.

He released a statement later on Thursday afternoon, implying that he is far from admitting defeat:

"I am grateful to the Ecuadorian people, President Rafael Correa and his government. It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin American nation. While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented US investigation against WikiLeaks must be stopped.

While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorian government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days. The task of protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, its supporters and its alleged sources continues."

It's worth noting that Mr Assange has not been charged with anything in Sweden and is only wanted for questioning regarding alleged offences. He has said he fears extradition from Sweden to the US, where he believes he might be found guilty of espionage and be sentenced to death. But no such extradition has been requested by the US, and both Sweden and the UK are prohibited by the European Convention of Human Rights from extraditing anyone who might face the death penalty.

4) The UK government enters the Ecuadorian embassy and forcibly removes Julian Assange for arrest

The UK foreign office has already insisted on its right to enter the embassy, citing the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. This legislation gives the UK government the power to revoke an embassy's diplomatic status and hence allow police to enter the building unimpeded. But to do this, it would have to give seven days' notice.

However even if the UK government did decide to forcibly remove Mr Assange from the embassy, its actions could be contested in court. Ecuador could challenge the UK's decision to revoke its embassy's status. The UK government would have to argue successfully that the embassy, by harbouring Mr Assange, had broken international law and therefore the UK had the right to take action.

There is an earlier piece of legislation, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which specifies that local police and security forces are not permitted to enter an embassy unless they have the express permission of the ambassador - even though the embassy remains the territory of the host nation.

But the convention also states that embassies must respect local laws and, in no circumstances, interfere in the host nation's internal affairs.

It might therefore come down to who can make the most persuasive case in the High Court over the correct application of the 1961 convention.

Whatever the resolution, it could set a precedent that affects the status of embassies around the world in countries far less tolerant than the United Kingdom.

I've seen a report which says William Hague pledges to NOT permit Assange safe passage out of the UK ... so, we have an interesting situation brewing ...

[jimnyc]

I hope he gets raped by an unhinged fat Ecuadorian transvestite.

[Drummond]

I hope he gets raped by an unhinged fat Ecuadorian transvestite.

:laugh::laugh::laugh2::lol::lol:

Maybe the British Government would pay one to give it a go .. ? It's obviously one solution, IF it meant Assange left the protection of the Embassy grounds ...

[Noir]

Firstly - Good. I don't know how many of you have read the case for him to be deported, but it's the biggest pile of tosh. One can only assume that it's political pressure that's given it such power. Which would be a very bad state of affairs.

A state if affairs that could only be made worse if the Brits rescind diplomatic immunity and storm the embassy...

And as an aside - it was my mum, who's a Legal Executive (and no fan of the things Assange has done regarding wikileaks, as she thinks it's endangered troops) who walked me through the judgements, and just how bad the case was for having him deported, yet it somehow was upheld.

[Thunderknuckles]

I would guess option #1 will be the likely outcome.
5+ years from now Assange will have some sort of "accident" that results in his death.

[Drummond]

Firstly - Good. I don't know how many of you have read the case for him to be deported, but it's the biggest pile of tosh. One can only assume that it's political pressure that's given it such power. Which would be a very bad state of affairs.

A state if affairs that could only be made worse if the Brits rescind diplomatic immunity and storm the embassy...

And as an aside - it was my mum, who's a Legal Executive (and no fan of the things Assange has done regarding wikileaks, as she thinks it's endangered troops) who walked me through the judgements, and just how bad the case was for having him deported, yet it somehow was upheld.

Noir, where are you going with this ? Are you trying to say that Assange is some type of VICTIM ??

This is a maniac who, for the sake of sensationalism (and maybe also to pursue some anti-Westernism ?) decided to take it upon himself to release material that was never meant for public consumption, material with such damaging potential that lives were put in danger.

So I cannot see why we have any 'duty' to care about HIS welfare !! Assange chose his path, and in so taking it, he intruded in the matter of international balances to such an extent that he proved he had a contempt for others.

Assange is a parasite. Let him face justice as is required of him.

And consider, Noir, that if Swedish sex charges against Assange really are 'trumped up', he could go there and have his day in court .. maybe even win court damages. BUT, instead, he's twisted and turned, evaded, kept away from his accusers - preferring to hole up in an Ecuadorian embassy, seeking and getting political asylum, rather than face his accusers !!

Do you see nothing wrong with that picture, Noir ?

Finally, consider that the Ecuadorian President - from what I've recently read - is anti-American, as Assange himself surely is. And as for the unholy alliance Assange has with a certain Marxist anti-American reporter called John Pilger, with Pilger having supported Assange in his efforts .. maybe the less said the better ?

So don't waste your sympathy. That's my advice.

[Noir]

Have you read the judgements Drummond? Take the personality out of it, and read them within a 'blind' legal context.

Also, it's is quite clear that if he goes to Sweden of his free will, he will be extradited to America.

[jimnyc]

The good news is, the UK officials aren't letting him just leave for Ecuador. They have apparently surrounded the building and arrest him if he attempts to leave. He may not like the charges against him, not many people do, but no matter how ridiculous they sound to some, he needs to answer to them. You would think that the more ridiculous they sound to some, the quicker he'll be in an out of court with a decent lawyer. No matter how flimsy the charges one thinks they are against them, they still need to answer to them. If the case against him is a "pile of tosh", and will most certainly be recorded/aired/monitored by the entire world, then he has nothing to fear.


Julian Assange asylum offer leads Ecuador and UK into diplomatic row William Hague insists WikiLeaks founder will not be allowed to leave country in his bid to escape extradition to Sweden

A major diplomatic row over the fate of the fugitive Julian Assange erupted after the WikiLeaks founder was offered political asylum by Ecuador to escape extradition from Britain over allegations of serious sexual assaults.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, responded by warning the Ecuadorean government that diplomatic immunity should not be used to harbour alleged criminals. He said Assange would be arrested if he leaves the embassy in London where he has lived for nearly two months.

Ecuador's decision has also angered the Swedish authorities, who wish to question Assange and the two women who claim he assaulted them during a trip to the country in 2010. Assange denies the assault claims and says he fears being sent on to the United States where he could face political persecution for releasing thousands of secret US cables.

The standoff will escalate tensions between the two countries over the fate of Assange, who has skipped bail while awaiting removal from the UK. It follows allegations from Ecuador that the British government has threatened to storm the embassy to seize Assange. Diplomatic posts are often considered the territory of the foreign nation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-uk-ecuador

[Noir]

The good news is, the UK officials aren't letting him just leave for Ecuador. They have apparently surrounded the building and arrest him if he attempts to leave. He may not like the charges against him, not many people do, but no matter how ridiculous they sound to some, he needs to answer to them. You would think that the more ridiculous they sound to some, the quicker he'll be in an out of court with a decent lawyer. No matter how flimsy the charges one thinks they are against them, they still need to answer to them. If the case against him is a "pile of tosh", and will most certainly be recorded/aired/monitored by the entire world, then he has nothing to fear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-uk-ecuador

The charges are a front to get him to Sweeden, once there he can be deported to America.

[jimnyc]

Have you read the judgements Drummond? Take the personality out of it, and read them within a 'blind' legal context.

Also, it's is quite clear that if he goes to Sweden of his free will, he will be extradited to America.

I honestly don't know UK law, but can you show us in the law where it allows someone to avoid trial with a decent lawyer, just because they think the charges are trumped up? And do these laws exist in Sweden too? Here in the US, no matter how crappy it all seems, the court of law will straighten it out and determine right from wrong - not the individual.

And if he does get extradited, it will only be under the rule of law. If he qualifies to be extradited to Sweden, he should be sent there. If Sweden has a treaty with the US, and he qualifies to be extradited, he should be sent. If it's SO trivial to so many, it will be easily shown in court and he'll be a free man very quickly.

[Drummond]

Have you read the judgements Drummond? Take the personality out of it, and read them within a 'blind' legal context.

Also, it's is quite clear that if he goes to Sweden of his free will, he will be extradited to America.

OK, so your sympathy for Assange is established .. so noted.

But tell me this. If you're correct, and Assange had successful extradition to America to look forward to, after going to Sweden ... well, what of it ?

What has he to fear from extradition ? CONSEQUENCES ... maybe, for HIS ACTIONS ?

Could it just be .... THAT JUSTICE WILL CATCH UP TO HIM, AT LONG LAST ???

I'm strongly in favour of Assange being fully culpable for all he's done, for all his wrecking activities, all his harm. So tell me, aren't YOU ?

[jimnyc]

The charges are a front to get him to Sweeden, once there he can be deported to America.

Then any reasonable court wouldn't call for an extradition of the charges don't call for it. And even so, maybe he should just come straight to America then, we have many awesome lawyers here, some who would probably even defend him for free just for the notoriety. They'll get the notoriety and he'll see a jail cell. If you don't believe that, that's cool, many differ on this subject, but he doesn't get to play make believe mafia and just disappear off the radar to avoid answering to charges.

[jimnyc]

I'm strongly in favour of Assange being fully culpable for all he's done, for all his wrecking activities, all his harm. So tell me, aren't YOU ?

Noir, as well as many like him in the states, see no wrongdoing by Assange and his organization releasing confidential and stolen state secrets. They rather him as one who "fights the man" and is a hero to many.

[Drummond]

I honestly don't know UK law, but can you show us in the law where it allows someone to avoid trial with a decent lawyer, just because they think the charges are trumped up? And do these laws exist in Sweden too? Here in the US, no matter how crappy it all seems, the court of law will straighten it out and determine right from wrong - not the individual.

And if he does get extradited, it will only be under the rule of law. If he qualifies to be extradited to Sweden, he should be sent there. If Sweden has a treaty with the US, and he qualifies to be extradited, he should be sent. If it's SO trivial to so many, it will be easily shown in court and he'll be a free man very quickly.

Quite.

See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Extraditio n_hearing


Extradition hearing The extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London.[42][43] Assange's lawyers at the extradition hearing were Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens (solicitor), human rights specialists, and the prosecution was represented by a team led by Clare Montgomery QC.[44] Arguments were presented as to whether the Swedish prosecutor had the authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant, the extradition was requested for prosecution or interrogation, the alleged crimes qualified as extradition crimes, there was an abuse of process, his human rights would be respected, and he would receive a fair trial if extradited to Sweden.

Extradition decision The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld.[33][45][46] Senior District Judge Howard Riddle found against Assange on each of the main arguments against his extradition.[47] The judge said "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution."[47] Judge Riddle concluded: "I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences."[47]

Assange commented after the decision to extradite him, saying "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system run amok."[48]

Appeal to the High Court On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged an appeal with the High Court challenging the decision to extradite him to Sweden.[49] Assange remained on conditional bail.[49][50] The appeal hearing took place on 12 and 13 July 2011 at the High Court in London. The judges' decision was reserved, and a written judgment was delivered on 2 November 2011, dismissing the appeal.[51][52][53][54]

Appeal to the Supreme Court The High Court refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but this was granted by the Supreme Court itself, after the High Court certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision. The point of law certified was whether a prosecutor is a judicial authority. The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 1 and 2 February 2012.[3] The court reserved its judgment,[55] and dismissed the appeal by a 5-2 majority on 30 May 2012.[56][4]

Assange has exhausted every legal avenue to fight extradition to Sweden, as after all, 'he is an innocent man with nothing to fear ..' ... !!

[Drummond]

Noir, as well as many like him in the states, see no wrongdoing by Assange and his organization releasing confidential and stolen state secrets. They rather him as one who "fights the man" and is a hero to many.

-- Which in my view is disgusting.

Had Assange been American, his actions would surely mean he'd be facing treason charges, for threatening (the exact extent to be determined in a trial) the welfare of America, its interests, its citizens. You just can't have a status quo where state secrets are disseminated to anyone you feel like releasing them to !!!

But then, the Left must love him.

[jimnyc]

Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.

[Drummond]

Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.

Well, I can't better this.

As you'll have seen, Assange already took that route in our system, with his case going to the Supreme Court - and all this is done and dusted. No, Assange is evading justice, pure and simple, and going to extraordinary lengths to manage it.

[logroller]

... material that was never meant for public consumption, material with such damaging potential that lives were put in danger.

Are you trying to say its OK for the government to have secrets; that the public is better off not knowing for their own protection??
I simply cannot accept that ignorance of these facts is something we are better off not knowing. What's that expression, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've nothing to hide.


I cannot see why we have any 'duty' to care about HIS welfare !!

Of course you don't see it; you've accepted gov't knows best and will do it for us.


Assange chose his path, and in so taking it, he intruded in the matter of international balances to such an extent that he proved he had a contempt for others.
...government hiding the truth of its actions from its citizenry, (especially, against its citizenry).


Assange is a parasite. Let him face justice as is required of him.

And consider, Noir, that if Swedish sex charges against Assange really are 'trumped up', he could go there and have his day in court .. maybe even win court damages. BUT, instead, he's twisted and turned, evaded, kept away from his accusers - preferring to hole up in an Ecuadorian embassy, seeking and getting political asylum, rather than face his accusers !!

Do you see nothing wrong with that picture, Noir ?

I see plenty wrong with what Assange released...first and foremost, what the government was doing and continues to do with this witch-hunt.
Tis how it goes. Govt does something, but claims it a national security interest-- which it probably is. Then, after x years pass, its no longer a national security interest, but the facts have long since been purged from the archives. Do you see nothing wrong with that?
It reminds me of operation fast and foolish furious. Now maybe it was for the best; but then, why not release the information after its requested instead of claiming executive privilege/national security. Perhaps because it has less to do with the security of the nation's people and everything to do with the security of the nation's political elite. To say the people have a limited right to know the actions of their government, then how, pray tell, can webe expected to give the necessary informed consent to be governed-- the result would be , at best, enlightened absolutism, and oligarchical despotism quite likely.


Finally, consider that the Ecuadorian President - from what I've recently read - is anti-American, as Assange himself surely is. And as for the unholy alliance Assange has with a certain Marxist anti-American reporter called John Pilger, with Pilger having supported Assange in his efforts .. maybe the less said the better ?

How on earth is it anti-american to expose government actions which violate the very foundation of a free people; unless, by anti-american, you mean being against the American government violating the Constitutional authority by which stands and allowing its minions to do the same.



don't waste your sympathy. That's my advice.

Ditto, only for the sympathy of the government. Did he break the law, assuredly; but don't waste your support for the hypocritical actions of government and their straw man witch hunt. That's my advice.

[logroller]

Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.

Imagine a world where the government controls the information and the means of attaining it-- Where the courts are the only recourse, but the presentation and gathering of evidence is under the exclusive purview of government. No one should be above the law, and that includes the government IMO. I highly doubt Assange will receive anything resembling a fair trial under the auspices of a corrupt and self-preserving system of government hell-bent on preserving their exclusive right to information and control. Best to label him a sex-offender and traitor-- classic straw man!!! I mean seriously, is there any doubt, whatsoever, that if Assange is arrested he will end up convicted of leaking state secrets ?

[jimnyc]

Are you trying to say its OK for the government to have secrets; that the public is better off not knowing for their own protection??
I simply cannot accept that ignorance of these facts is something we are better off not knowing. What's that expression, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've nothing to hide.

Our government has always held state secrets and confidential information, only viewable to a certain few, for national security reasons. Do you think everything and anything our government knows, including information gathered from our intelligence agencies, should therefore now be public information? Imagine the government keeping us up to date on the intel gathered about Osama, and what their planning was? Do you think being free and open with such information would have lead to the same results? The government holding secrets doesn't even come close to meaning they are hiding it because they did wrong. Our intelligence agencies and those who deal with them would be out of business by tomorrow if they were expected to share all of their information with the public. It's not only that it's OK for the government to have secrets - it's an absolute must that they have to keep certain things secret. Classified materials for example, that may contain information about operatives in a foreign land, most certainly should remain secret, or we are placing American lives in danger. Making sensitive information and classified documents accessible to the public is also making them accessible to the enemy.


Imagine a world where the government controls the information and the means of attaining it-- Where the courts are the only recourse, but the presentation and gathering of evidence is under the exclusive purview of government. No one should be above the law, and that includes the government IMO. I highly doubt Assange will receive anything resembling a fair trial under the auspices of a corrupt and self-preserving system of government hell-bent on preserving their exclusive right to information and control. Best to label him a sex-offender and traitor-- classic straw man!!! I mean seriously, is there any doubt, whatsoever, that if Assange is arrested he will end up convicted of leaking state secrets ?

I don't see how Assange can receive anything less than a fair trial, knowing the entire world would be watching. Laws are laws and trials are trials. They can't magically make things up as evidence, make up laws and put a man in prison without anyone seeing it. Either the rule of law stands or it doesn't. If a jury of his peers isn't good enough for him, then it's not good enough for anyone, and our justice system might as well be closed down.

He'll end up being convicted if there is sufficient evidence to backup any charges brought against him, it's that simple. To think otherwise, and to say certain individuals and certain cases, should be above the judicial system and have the ability to avoid justice and hide as an alternative, doesn't make for good precedent.

This should be handled no differently than any other case. "The people" believe a crime has been committed. They bring forth the defendant to the courts for justice, and a judge or jury of his peers will hear all of the evidence and decide whether or not the peoples case has any merit. We have a justice department and courts for a reason, to find the truth and hold those accountable that break laws. I haven't always thought it was fair the few times I had to go into court, but hiding and declaring myself above the law wasn't an option. Assange doesn't get to be treated differently. I believe if he is convicted it will be because of the facts brought forth, which the entire world will see. If he feels he got a raw deal, he'll have the ability to appeal his case.

But back to the first portion of this post. Do you really think our government shouldn't be allowed to have anything kept secret or confidential?

[jimnyc]

I see plenty wrong with what Assange released...first and foremost, what the government was doing and continues to do with this witch-hunt.
Tis how it goes. Govt does something, but claims it a national security interest-- which it probably is. Then, after x years pass, its no longer a national security interest, but the facts have long since been purged from the archives. Do you see nothing wrong with that?

You do know that information he released put active operatives lives at risk in foreign lands? If what he released were only documents from archives that were no longer any type of threat, no problem. But that wasn't the case.

[Drummond]

I think Jim has answered you to a great degree already. With that in mind ...


Are you trying to say its OK for the government to have secrets; that the public is better off not knowing for their own protection??
I simply cannot accept that ignorance of these facts is something we are better off not knowing. What's that expression, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've nothing to hide.

You seem to be assuming that secrets are kept as some sort of automatically 'evil act', and that no good or protective purpose can be served by keeping them. But, every country has State secrets, and to release them can amount to treachery against the State.

Consider, in this case, the truth of the fact that unplanned-for dissemination of material which - in the releasing - harms trust, skews previously-held perspectives ... nothing good was likely to come out of putting that in the public arena. Assange will have known that, but he lacked the will or the responsibility to care about the possible damage.


Of course you don't see it; you've accepted gov't knows best and will do it for us.

That isn't something to be automatically accepted .. but equally, you can't dismiss the truth of that, either !

Consider this, if you will. Assange set himself up as judge and jury as to what should be known. What made HIS judgment altogether more deserving of acceptance than anyone else ???


...government hiding the truth of its actions from its citizenry, (especially, against its citizenry).

I think Jim's already answered you.


I see plenty wrong with what Assange released...first and foremost, what the government was doing and continues to do with this witch-hunt.
Tis how it goes. Govt does something, but claims it a national security interest-- which it probably is. Then, after x years pass, its no longer a national security interest, but the facts have long since been purged from the archives. Do you see nothing wrong with that?

But aren't you following in Assange's footsteps with that ? What makes you MORE expert, MORE deserving of an ability to act in judgment, than those whose secrets these were ? Is your own judgment immune from criticism ?

And if you think it is ... well, just maybe, those you're criticising may have insights you lack ? A judgmental expertise you don't have ?


It reminds me of operation fast and foolish furious. Now maybe it was for the best; but then, why not release the information after its requested instead of claiming executive privilege/national security. Perhaps because it has less to do with the security of the nation's people and everything to do with the security of the nation's political elite. To say the people have a limited right to know the actions of their government, then how, pray tell, can webe expected to give the necessary informed consent to be governed-- the result would be , at best, enlightened absolutism, and oligarchical despotism quite likely.

There's a lot in your piece that presumes superior judgmental capacity. Do you know it's warranted ?

And when you vote a Government into power, what do you vote for ? A manifesto ... an understanding of intended general direction, which then becomes refined according to ongoing circumstances as the process of Government proceeds day-by-day. What you DON'T do is to deman that every tiny detail of everything Government says or does is run past you, for you to adjudicate .. THAT is the process of Government, which you'd clog up with minutiae if you demanded anything like that level of feedback !


How on earth is it anti-american to expose government actions which violate the very foundation of a free people; unless, by anti-american, you mean being against the American government violating the Constitutional authority by which stands and allowing its minions to do the same.

Let me ask you in return what Assange's sympathies and biases have been, throughout all of this.

Try judging him by his supporters. The Ecuadorian President, is he pro, or anti, American ?

A long-standing ally of Assange is an Australian-born journalist called John Pilger (he's been living in the UK for decades). Pilger is HARD LEFT, and has written some very scathing anti-Western pieces before now. He's freelance, but he used to write for the one Communist newspaper Britain has, called the Morning Star, and these days writes pieces for the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.

He used to have an association with the BBC, but they dropped him. He was too hardline in his views ...

And by the way ... Wikileaks material, I understand, was disseminated via the Guardian ...

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/01/its-done-bruised-egos-lead-to-the-release-of-uncensored-wikileaks-cables/


The full, unredacted set of WikiLeaks cables is now available online and in readable form, courtesy of a three-way clash of egos between Julian Assange, disgruntled ex-WikiLeaks volunteer Daniel Domscheit-Berg and the Guardian’s senior journalists.

The release places in potentially grave danger US diplomatic sources whose names have been removed from the publicly released cables.

How? A document containing the full set of over a quarter of a million cables was placed online in encrypted form late last year. In what circumstances is unclear — according to different sources, it was done either by Julian Assange himself or, it now seems more likely, posted unwittingly by a WikiLeaks supporter, after material taken by Domscheit-Berg was returned to WikiLeaks. By that time, full unencrypted sets of the cables had already been passed by WikiLeaks to the The Guardian, which passed them to The New York Times against Assange’s wishes.

In any event, the online material at that point was unreadable without a password.

The problem was, the password was made available, by none other than The Guardian’s David Leigh, in his book released in February this year co-written with Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. An extract from the book, which was published after the encrypted material had gone online:

Eventually, Assange capitulated. Late at night, after a two-hour debate, he started the process on one of his little netbooks that would enable Leigh to download the entire tranche of cables. The Guardian journalist had to set up the PGP encryption system on his laptop at home across the other side of London. Then he could feed in a password. Assange wrote down on a scrap of paper:

CollectionOfHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#

“That’s the password,” he said. “But you have to add one extra word when you type it in. You have to put in the word ‘Diplomatic’ before the word ‘History’ Can you remember that?” “I can remember that.” Leigh set off home, and successfully installed the PGP software.

Leigh thus, as part of his effort to cash in on his once-intense but by then-soured relationship with Assange, had revealed the key to decrypting the entire set of cables that had been available online.

So tell me - - are you 'impressed' with the handling involved ? Was it all done in a totally responsible manner, by people you know could be trusted ???

Further links - see these, concerning Pilger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzaclKj2B8M&feature=related

How about this little gem, asking for Blair to be prosecuted for falling in line with GW Bush ?

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/tony-blair-must-be-prosecuted

Or, this one, calling for civil disobedience as a protest against the start of the Iraq War ??

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/we-all-have-a-choice


When Bush and Blair begin their illegal and immoral attack on a country that offers us no threat, we all have a choice.

We can wring our hands and say there is nothing we can do in the face of such powerful piracy - or we can reclaim the democracy that has been so corrupted by an elected dictatorship (in Bush's case, unelected).

There is only one responsible way to achieve the second goal. The polite term is civil disobedience. The street term is rebellion.

Perhaps you have 'great faith' in Lefties like these ... who so radically oppose political decisions that they undemocratically set themselves up as arbiters of all THEY say is 'good and right', in total opposition to those you may elect to power ??

Pilger and Assange were associates. Entrusting State secrets to hardline and wilfully subversive Lefties nobody has ever voted for -- is, I suggest, NOT A GOOD THING !!

ASK YOURSELF IF YOU EVER VOTED FOR THEIR UNILATERALLY CHOSEN POLITICAL AGENDA !!

[logroller]

You do know that information he released put active operatives lives at risk in foreign lands? If what he released were only documents from archives that were no longer any type of threat, no problem. But that wasn't the case.

Um, who put operatives in foreign lands at risk??? Assange? See. the way I see it, those operatives (e.g. spies) and the State put their lives at risk by putting them in foreign lands to spy. If we operate under the assumption its OK to spy because its in the best interest of the Govt/the people/USA what have you, OK; I'll accept that, but would you accept it if a foreign agency does so here in the US; Agenda 21 anyone??? What if it wasn't actually in the best interest of the USA? How would we know if the justification was deemed privileged?


Our government has always held state secrets and confidential information, only viewable to a certain few, for national security reasons. Do you think everything and anything our government knows, including information gathered from our intelligence agencies, should therefore now be public information? Imagine the government keeping us up to date on the intel gathered about Osama, and what their planning was? Do you think being free and open with such information would have lead to the same results? The government holding secrets doesn't even come close to meaning they are hiding it because they did wrong. Our intelligence agencies and those who deal with them would be out of business by tomorrow if they were expected to share all of their information with the public. It's not only that it's OK for the government to have secrets - it's an absolute must that they have to keep certain things secret. Classified materials for example, that may contain information about operatives in a foreign land, most certainly should remain secret, or we are placing American lives in danger. Making sensitive information and classified documents accessible to the public is also making them accessible to the enemy.

Of course it is necessary, sometimes. During war, for example. During peace, no. We are not at war...as in, Congressionally declared war. What we are is war-mongering, plain and simple, and the world sees that, I see that, and if you're honest, you'll see that. This is the thing, I don't even care, not really. I think we assassinated Osama, and I'm glad we did. To answer your question, I don't think it would be bad to divulge the info which led to it. For example, why did Osama hate the US-- What led to that? Was it the US involvement in Iran and the Shah? Was it selling nuclear arms to Israel, propping up dictatorships Mubarak, Saddam, and the Al Sauds; they were in-line with our economic interests but, at the same, suppress political ideologies more in line with democratic and religious freedom? (Quick shout out to Revelarts) I can talk about the likelihood, but how many times have you dismissed such things as conspiracy theories for lack of hard evidence? "NONE" you would say--- evidence which, if it exists, is likely an issue of "national security" and thus, it would be impossible to present. Then when the FOIA restrictions on items of national security sunsets, the evidence, curiously, doesn't exist anymore thanks to, and I quote the CIA, "file purging." Its all lost to history Jim; and that bothers me because then, as now, the ramifications of these security are not only ongoing, but growing in intensity. I have good reason to be mad as hell; Wikileaks showed the depths to which our government will go to protect this nation, including the implementation of policies which violate it's own citizens' rights. Sorry Jim, that's not American.



I don't see how Assange can receive anything less than a fair trial, knowing the entire world would be watching. Laws are laws and trials are trials. They can't magically make things up as evidence, make up laws and put a man in prison without anyone seeing it. Either the rule of law stands or it doesn't. If a jury of his peers isn't good enough for him, then it's not good enough for anyone, and our justice system might as well be closed down.

I'll tell you how he won't get a fair trial. This is a matter of national security, right? So most of the evidence to be used against him will be shielded from the public record and eye. Likewise, there will be no allowances for what would, were it a private matter, entitle him to immunity from prosecution as a whistle-blower against government corruption; but no, that won't happen. Because A) national security and B) the evidence in his defense was illegally obtained. Nevermind the fact it was evidence illegally obtained about government regarding information illegally obtained by government-- the government hates competition, period. Your belief in the justice system is as admirable as it is naive-- one should suppose a tax isn't really a tax for some purposes :laugh:


He'll end up being convicted if there is sufficient evidence to backup any charges brought against him,

and a sympathetic justice system which will suppress evidence that could be used in his defense (see above)


it's that simple. To think otherwise, and to say certain individuals and certain cases, should be above the judicial system and have the ability to avoid justice and hide as an alternative, doesn't make for good precedent.

All the rules will be special, because its a special case-- national security and all. There's ample precedent for our government hiding things to avoid the dispensation of justice-- GITMO!!!



This should be handled no differently than any other case. "The people" believe a crime has been committed. They bring forth the defendant to the courts for justice, and a judge or jury of his peers will hear all of the evidence and decide whether or not the peoples case has any merit. We have a justice department and courts for a reason, to find the truth and hold those accountable that break laws. I haven't always thought it was fair the few times I had to go into court, but hiding and declaring myself above the law wasn't an option. Assange doesn't get to be treated differently. I believe if he is convicted it will be because of the facts brought forth, which the entire world will see. If he feels he got a raw deal, he'll have the ability to appeal his case.
But back to the first portion of this post. Do you really think our government shouldn't be allowed to have anything kept secret or confidential?
I answered that above, sometimes, for a limited period of time. And I have been in court where it wasn't fair, evidence to establish reasonable doubt was suppressed, I see no reason to believe Assange's trial would be any less subject to the whims of the bench.
To me, what I question is who holds the government accountable? Do you really think the government can be trusted to hold itself accountable if it violates the rights of its citizens...as a fox guards the hen house?

Its not as though I don't understand the government's reasoning; he broke our laws and he must face punishment, else everybody will do it. Justice-wise, that makes perfect sense; I'm with you, and when/if faced with a trial, I've little doubt he will be found guilty. Not to mention the egg in the face from being outdone at our own crony gamesmanship-- you poke a bear, you get mauled. But that doesn't diminish the severity and insidious nature of what Assange uncovered. Regardless of what it took to bring that to light, our government clearly broke the law by conspiring with corporations to violate the privacy of American citizens-- who punishes our government--Who is even capable of doing so? and if it goes unpunished, everybody in government will do it, right?

This sort of clandestine activity in the interest of national defense has been going on for the better part of the last century, and near as I can tell, we're no safer than before... far less so IMHO. At a certain point you have to stop and think, what good has this done? Doing bad for a good cause hasn't actually made things better, its made things worse. The world isn't a safer place for Americans than it was at the beginning of the cold-war; terrorist attacks have increased in frequency of attempts and intensity of impact, leading to a decrease in our freedoms-- e.g. you can't knit on a plane due to it posing a threat-- There were recognized risks, supposedly unidentified threats preceding 9/11, yet I've heard of no airline which was aware of such a threat...but alas, I suppose that info was privileged, vital to the national security... yet still, we are left to trust them. You know what I trust, the flow of money, and there's plenty of money to be made in the information business. It reminds me of the Chinese, where the social necessity is the pitch, with crony capitalism the rub.

[Thunderknuckles]

For God's sake people, it's Friday night and I've had too many beers to read that wall of text!!!
:laugh:

[Neo]

Noir, as well as many like him in the states, see no wrongdoing by Assange and his organization releasing confidential and stolen state secrets. They rather him as one who "fights the man" and is a hero to many.


3867



Assange will get his due soon enuff, you can bet he's already been contracted out so it's just a matter of time b4 that maggot pays for his treachery.

Noir is your typical example of a spoiled, America hating, ungreatfull, left-wing "World Citizen" types who will ALWAYS find fault with America, the only exceptions being that which a fellow leftist (like Obonzo) deems to be appropriate, then it's perfectly ok (see use of drones for assasinations, as an example, GITMO still in biz), lots of things that people of his ilk seem to ignore, excuse, or otherwise sanction, because it's "their" guy doing it.

Did I mention that Liberals are hypocrites of the 1st Order as well?

[jafar00]

This is a maniac who, for the sake of sensationalism (and maybe also to pursue some anti-Westernism ?) decided to take it upon himself to release material that was never meant for public consumption, material with such damaging potential that lives were put in danger.

I see him as a hero. A champion of Freedom of Speech.
So what if the material released makes western leaders look more corrupt than the worst of African tinpot dictators. This kind of checks and balances is what the world needs. Do you really know what unspeakables your government is doing in secret in your name?

For example

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasisquith/2011/09/the-latest-wikileaks-release-may-be-the-worst-one-yet/

And you wonder why "they" hate you.

[Noir]

Quite.

See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Extraditio n_hearing

Assange has exhausted every legal avenue to fight extradition to Sweden, as after all, 'he is an innocent man with nothing to fear ..' ... !!

No he has not. He has taken the legal position of claiming (and being granted) asylum in a foreign embassy.
But the political pressure is so strong that Britain may storm an embassy office =/

[Noir]

Imagine a world where the defendants, and those supporting them, got to determine the validity of charges and as to whether or not they should have their day in court? No one should be above the courts, in any nation, IMO. And if you don't like their decision, appeal to a higher court. I highly doubt that a case that will be watched by the entire world, will somehow have the fix in.

Speaks someone who hasn't read the judgements and evidence in the case. Read them for yourself and decide for yourself. Not what some newspaper, or journalist, or I have to say about it.

I know for a fact that if this had happened in the UK he wouldn't be charged with sexual molestation, never mind rape. (Even the Swedish Prosecutor agrees with me on that, since she dismiss the arrest warrants and charges, before any wikileaks-America scandal...)

[Noir]

<img src="http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3867"/>

Assange will get his due soon enuff, you can bet he's already been contracted out so it's just a matter of time b4 that maggot pays for his treachery.

Noir is your typical example of a spoiled, America hating, ungreatfull, left-wing "World Citizen" types who will ALWAYS find fault with America, the only exceptions being that which a fellow leftist (like Obonzo) deems to be appropriate, then it's perfectly ok (see use of drones for assasinations, as an example, GITMO still in biz), lots of things that people of his ilk seem to ignore, excuse, or otherwise sanction, because it's "their" guy doing it.

Did I mention that Liberals are hypocrites of the 1st Order as well?

Firstly Wikileaks has done *much* more than just the American Cables leaks, but that's all that interests most Americans.

Maggot paying for his treachery... If only all of the docs published involved Russia, China, and Iran, and there was no mention of any wrong doing by the white-knight Americans, then no doubt he wouldn't be so maggoty to you, no?

As for the whole 'typical American hating' nonsense, you must be very new indeed.

[Neo]

I see him as a hero. A champion of Freedom of Speech.
So what if the material released makes western leaders look more corrupt than the worst of African tinpot dictators. This kind of checks and balances is what the world needs. Do you really know what unspeakables your government is doing in secret in your name?

For example

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasisquith/2011/09/the-latest-wikileaks-release-may-be-the-worst-one-yet/

And you wonder why "they" hate you.


Some how, I have a feeling that many people here may find you despicable, I know that I do. So you think that this scum is a hero do you? I guess that means that this douchebags' so called "free speech", supercedes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others by needlessly putting them and their families in harms way thru the exposure of their efforts in support of their freedom? Because that's what this asstool did by leaking everything, consequences to innocents, the very crutch of his defense, be damed.

That makes the two of you not only 2 despicable peas in a pod, but hypocrites of the 1st order as well. Typical behavoir and attitude of a left-wing, anti-American, terrorist loving, malcontents.

You clowns are so smart, you've cornered the market on what's right and whats wrong, isn't that right, hmmm? Why, I'll bet you believe 2 wrongs make a right as well?

Well, I think you're smart too...by 1/2.

Assange's a marked man, a.k.a. "a dead man walking" and I will celebrate his death with a bottle of the bubbly when that day arrives in the not so distant future.

Bet it, it's bankable!

[Neo]

Firstly Wikileaks has done *much* more than just the American Cables leaks, but that's all that interests most Americans.

Maggot paying for his treachery... If only all of the docs published involved Russia, China, and Iran, and there was no mention of any wrong doing by the white-knight Americans, then no doubt he wouldn't be so maggoty to you, no?

As for the whole 'typical American hating' nonsense, you must be very new indeed.

Wrong on all accounts. When you appoint yourself God and decide that life is less important than your self-aggrandizing, then I've got a problem with you, regardless of who's secrets are exposed. There are other, less compromising ways to expose war crimes without needlessly putting innocent people at risk.

As for that which you refer to as nonsense, I've read enuff of your tripe to know your stripes and I got you pegged there Nancy, spot on.

Have a blessed day and keep smiling, you just won the coveted "Pinhead", awarded to "sharp" people like you! :clap: 3869

[jimnyc]

What we have learned thus far, is that many think it's A-ok to infiltrate any government and steal confidential documents, give this confidential information to the world, and be held up as a hero. All governments going forth then, should simply place everything and anything on the internet immediately, accessible to the world so that everyone is on the same page. It doesn't matter if it gets people killed or puts others at risk, so long as there are no secrets!

[jimnyc]

Um, who put operatives in foreign lands at risk??? Assange? See. the way I see it, those operatives (e.g. spies) and the State put their lives at risk by putting them in foreign lands to spy. If we operate under the assumption its OK to spy because its in the best interest of the Govt/the people/USA what have you, OK; I'll accept that, but would you accept it if a foreign agency does so here in the US; Agenda 21 anyone??? What if it wasn't actually in the best interest of the USA? How would we know if the justification was deemed privileged?

We're talking about information being placed out there while operatives are still active. So I ask again, if they placed this information out there daily as things progressed, do you think they would have still captured/killed OBL? There's really little point in having spies or intelligence agencies if we are going to say the information they have or find is to immediately be released to the public.

And yes, these people took the risk going into foreign lands, with the knowledge that their government was protecting them and not disseminating information about them or their mission. If the government wasn't allowed to keep such things secret, who in their right mind would take a mission knowing the enemy also knows of their plans? Quite ridiculous, no? Not to mention potentially suicidal.

If Assange had released documents that were all after a certain age, but still confidential, I would still disagree with him but wouldn't be this dead set against him - as truth is being told and no lives are at risk. Kind of like the system we have as a matter of policy right now. Keep certain things confidential, and at a determined time we allow them for public consumption. But Assange released LIVE information, current information, NOT dated information, and information that placed others at risk.

[jimnyc]

Firstly Wikileaks has done *much* more than just the American Cables leaks, but that's all that interests most Americans.

Maggot paying for his treachery... If only all of the docs published involved Russia, China, and Iran, and there was no mention of any wrong doing by the white-knight Americans, then no doubt he wouldn't be so maggoty to you, no?

As for the whole 'typical American hating' nonsense, you must be very new indeed.

If the information caused an international rift between the USA and any of the named countries, I would still condemn Assange. Of course not of the same weight, but wrong is wrong. And his documents embarrassed and hurt much more than just the USA, and if you eliminated our confidential documents, I would still have pretty much a similar stance. If it were an American for example, and solely released documentation that embarrassed the UK and placed a few UK operatives at risk, my stance would be identical. These were traitorous actions towards quite a few nations, only the USA had the most documents and was the source of the theft.

[jimnyc]

On my opinion side - "they" should already have people setting up shop in Ecuador. If and when he arrives, wait for the dust to settle, and eliminate the target. This is what happens to traitors in most places anyway, and now we have a traitor that can't even stand behind his own actions. And nope, I really don't care that this would be an assassination, so save it. While certainly no Bin Laden, he's still an enemy of our country on the run.

[Noir]

What we have learned thus far, is that many think it's A-ok to infiltrate any government and steal confidential documents, give this confidential information to the world, and be held up as a hero. All governments going forth then, should simply place everything and anything on the internet immediately, accessible to the world so that everyone is on the same page. It doesn't matter if it gets people killed or puts others at risk, so long as there are no secrets!

...so Wikileaks didn't go through the documents, censoring out information that they regarded as serving only to put lives in danger?

[Noir]

On my opinion side - "they" should already have people setting up shop in Ecuador. If and when he arrives, wait for the dust to settle, and eliminate the target. This is what happens to traitors in most places anyway, and now we have a traitor that can't even stand behind his own actions. And nope, I really don't care that this would be an assassination, so save it. While certainly no Bin Laden, he's still an enemy of our country on the run.

Traitor to who? I was not aware he was american.

[jimnyc]

...so Wikileaks didn't go through the documents, censoring out information that they regarded as serving only to put lives in danger?

If they did, they failed, as they DID release documentation that placed lives in danger. Furthermore, you didn't get to black-out a handful of things and therefore claim your crime wasn't a crime. You say you read everything on this case, or were you only referring to the Swedish side of things? Because if you did read all of it you would know that he placed lives at risk, and it's easily found with a quick search.

[Neo]

Everything you said is spot on Jim, but you're wasting your time with people like Noir and jafar00 because they think, much like Assange I'm sure, that they are rightious in all things and you're just an anal retentive, flag waving American nationalist conservative, who cannot discern right from wrong.

[jimnyc]

Traitor to who? I was not aware he was american.

Oh, then in that case he might as well just take a vacation in Miami if he did no wrong!

The Espionage act of 1917. Both are clearly guilty of this crime, Assange and Manning. Maybe not a "traitor" by the modern definition, but a conspiracy to do as much in which he was involved. But guilty of the espionage act is an open and shut case, as if the act was written with his actions in mind.

[Noir]

If they did, they failed, as they DID release documentation that placed lives in danger. Furthermore, you didn't get to black-out a handful of things and therefore claim your crime wasn't a crime. You say you read everything on this case, or were you only referring to the Swedish side of things? Because if you did read all of it you would know that he placed lives at risk, and it's easily found with a quick search.

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.

When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

[Noir]

Oh, then in that case he might as well just take a vacation in Miami if he did no wrong!

The Espionage act of 1917. Both are clearly guilty of this crime, Assange and Manning. Maybe not a "traitor" by the modern definition, but a conspiracy to do as much in which he was involved. But guilty of the espionage act is an open and shut case, as if the act was written with his actions in mind.

As has already been pointed out by lawyers in the States, the wording of the Act is so broad that any News editor who reported what wikileaks reported could be charged and convicted. That's an awful lot of traitors...

[jimnyc]

Everything you said is spot on Jim, but you're wasting your time with people like Noir and jafar00 because they think, much like Assange I'm sure, that they are rightious in all things and you're just an anal retentive, flag waving American nationalist conservative, who cannot discern right from wrong.

Only wasting time as in I know they aren't likely to change their minds. But I still like to debate it nonetheless.

Funny thing is, and I won't waste my time searching, but some people defending Assange are the same people that see criminal actions for FAR less, and expect actions against such people. But when someone has a massive undertaking against the worlds largest government, and other governments, they see him as a hero. Odd.

Funny how you very rarely read of anyone any longer supporting Bradley Manning. I'm sure some of the wing nuts do, but by far and large he has been forgotten in this entire saga. You would think, that if this was all about justice and defense for those involved, that they would lend support, if not more support, for Manning since he is incarcerated. Based on the arguments presented, the only crime then that Manning would be guilty of is theft, simple theft. Why is he still imprisoned then, and why are these same people out supporting Assange and have left Manning for bait for the fishies?

He deserves to be sitting right where he is and more and more are realizing that and support for him has fizzled out and down to a minority.

[jimnyc]

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.

What crime did he commit that placed people at risk? What confidential documents did he release? Talk about apples and oranges, these 2 cases aren't even remotely close.


When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

Point me to where anyone here is stating that these troops shouldn't meet justice? But that wasn't part of their plan, or they would just have released what they thought were criminal actions being covered up. They releases everything and anything that they could get their hands on.

But it's you who misses the point. No matter how many crimes they bring to light, and no matter how much good intent they may have had - the still committed crimes.

[jafar00]

So Jimmy, do you now agree with me when I said in another thread that there should be limits placed upon freedom of speech when said freedom of speech may incite others to violence or cause people to lose their lives?

[jimnyc]

As has already been pointed out by lawyers in the States, the wording of the Act is so broad that any News editor who reported what wikileaks reported could be charged and convicted. That's an awful lot of traitors...

Lame, lame lame.Give us a history of when it's been used, please....

"IF" someone brought it forth incorrectly, I believe a judge and jury would see the case for what it is and appropriately use the wording of the act to the alleged crime in front of them. But this hasn't happened anyway, has it? The fact is, the reason that the act was written, was not for the lame reasons you bring forth, but for the exact things that Manning/Assange conspired to do.

But back to your lame point - if these people could just as easily be charged and convicted, let's discuss the misuse of this act before going forward. Please cite for us where these editors or reporters have been charged, and let's dissect the reasoning behind them meeting the act of 1917. Surely there had to be good reasoning to charge these editors and surely a judge or jury saw valid reason for their "crimes" to be connected, and find them guilty of this act. So let's start there.

I'll answer for you, it hasn't happened, and the charges wouldn't stick in such a lame comparison, and this is why no charges were ever brought forth in such a lame comparison.

[jimnyc]

So Jimmy, do you now agree with me when I said in another thread that there should be limits placed upon freedom of speech when said freedom of speech may incite others to violence or cause people to lose their lives?

I never once stated that freedom of speech didn't or shouldn't come with limitations, ever. Of course there are limitations. I even agreed in that thread that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would be beyond the freedom, IMO. So surely theft of confidential information and dissemination of them is beyond any of these freedoms. IMO, freedom of speech doesn't even enter the realm of this case at all.

At the VERY least, Manning is guilty of theft and Assange guilty of conspiracy to commit theft. Both of this cannot be disputed. Well, some will try, but facts are facts.

Where do you feel freedom of speech fits into any of this? Are you of the belief that some feel he has the right to have done what he did with these documents, based on that amendment?

[Neo]

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.

When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

The difference is the cartoonist put himself at risk, and later was murdered in cold blood and in broad daylight no less, by one of those so called Muslim "Religion of Peace" diciples of yours. Where you get him putting others at risk with HIS work defies logic, then again you are a "Pinhead" receipient, so maybe not.

As for American troops abusing prisoners, you paint with a mighty broad brush. Those incidents are far and few between and the responsible party(s) are punished. There isn't a cover-up just because we don't broadcast it, and who the hell died and made Assange, or anyone else for that matter, the lone judge and jury of what should be public or not?

Can we say "pompous"?

We treat our prisoners better than we treat our own troops and bend over backwards to insure their good care. Prisoners at Gitmo are provided prayer rugs, Korans, time to pray however many times they require, meals in their traditions, and the finest medical care in the world, bar none. They got it better there than at home.

You really are clueless, aren't you?

Nevermind, rhetorical question.

[Noir]

What crime did he commit that placed people at risk? What confidential documents did he release? Talk about apples and oranges, these 2 cases aren't even remotely close.

The name of the crime doesn't matter (tough if you want one, something like 'incitement to hatred' would suffice.) The point is the principle - curtailing freedom of speech because of a violent reaction to it, is a bad path to go down.


Point me to where anyone here is stating that these troops shouldn't meet justice? But that wasn't part of their plan, or they would just have released what they thought were criminal actions being covered up. They releases everything and anything that they could get their hands on.

But it's you who misses the point. No matter how many crimes they bring to light, and no matter how much good intent they may have had - the still committed crimes.

They are only 'crimes' because he made the information public, if he gathered information, and sold it to American companies, he'd be like any other American spy. Unless i have you wrong, and you think that all American spys should be sent to the countries they've shared information about, to face justice for their, well, crimes?

[jimnyc]

The name of the crime doesn't matter (tough if you want one, something like 'incitement to hatred' would suffice.) The point is the principle - curtailing freedom of speech because of a violent reaction to it, is a bad path to go down.

Does Denmark have "freedom of speech" in their constitution? I don't know what types of freedoms they have in that regard in comparison to the US. Either way, I don't see a curtailing of FOS in Denmark, if that's what you're getting at, nor has there been any curtailing in the US due to the Assange/Manning case. In fact, I still don't see where FOS has anything to do with this thread. One person potentially placed himself and others at risk, because of a perfectly legal action - which you're trying to compare to the actions of Assange and Manning, which were based on illegal actions. Divulging confidential documents is not freedom of speech. And even if you were to make that argument, you yourself pointed out that Assange is not an American, therefore he holds no rights under our constitution.


They are only 'crimes' because he made the information public, if he gathered information, and sold it to American companies, he'd be like any other American spy. Unless i have you wrong, and you think that all American spys should be sent to the countries they've shared information about, to face justice for their, well, crimes?

The minute Manning STOLE the documents and then passed them onto Assange - crimes were committed. They both could have been prosecuted on the theft charges alone, and it wouldn't be petty theft.

And yes, every person who is a spy for their country, is committing illegal acts once they do certain things in a foreign country. If caught in the commission of a crime, there's really not much to do in their defense, a crime is a crime. And it all depends on which country they were accused of committing crimes against and what evidence they have. But if it's damning evidence and we have a extradition treaty with them, I don't see how we would be able to ignore the law. This is why we hire the best of the best and give them the best of training, and they 'never' get caught.

[Neo]

The name of the crime doesn't matter (tough if you want one, something like 'incitement to hatred' would suffice.) The point is the principle - curtailing freedom of speech because of a violent reaction to it, is a bad path to go down.



They are only 'crimes' because he made the information public, if he gathered information, and sold it to American companies, he'd be like any other American spy. Unless i have you wrong, and you think that all American spys should be sent to the countries they've shared information about, to face justice for their, well, crimes?

Jimmy, you follow this fella's thinking, because he makes zero sense to me, totally illogical. Correct me here if I'm wrong Jim, but stealing, or in this case, espionage, is a crime no matter if you sell it or give it away. Then there's the matter of accepting and possessing stolen goods, also a crime. Then you publish it and put peoples lives at risk? Tsk, tsk! Where oh where is that fabled Lib concern and compassion for human rights?

Or is that selective based on ones political agenda?

Help me out here, will ya Jim?

[jimnyc]

Jimmy, you follow this fella's thinking, because he makes zero sense to me, totally illogical. Correct me here if I'm wrong Jim, but stealing, or in this case, espionage, is a crime no matter if you sell it or give it away. Then there's the matter of accepting and possessing stolen goods, also a crime. Then you publish it and put peoples lives at risk? Tsk, tsk! Where oh where is that fabled Lib concern and compassion for human rights?

Or is that selective based on ones political agenda?

Help me out here, will ya Jim?

The more you inject into the debate about criminal actions the more obfuscation you will see to turn him into a hero. Bottom line, and first hurdle to get past - DID theft take place? DID the stolen documents go to Assange. These answers are very clearly yes. No one doubts that Manning "took" these documents and no one doubts that Assange/Wikileaks received the documents. You steal a candy bar and you get charged with petty theft, pay a small fine and have a criminal record. Steal a car and you are charged with felony theft and will be incarcerated for a period of time. This crime is easily worse than both of those theft examples. Some are making thieves out to be heroes because it politically suits them. But a crime is a crime is a crime.

[Neo]

The more you inject into the debate about criminal actions the more obfuscation you will see to turn him into a hero. Bottom line, and first hurdle to get past - DID theft take place? DID the stolen documents go to Assange. These answers are very clearly yes. No one doubts that Manning "took" these documents and no one doubts that Assange/Wikileaks received the documents. You steal a candy bar and you get charged with petty theft, pay a small fine and have a criminal record. Steal a car and you are charged with felony theft and will be incarcerated for a period of time. This crime is easily worse than both of those theft examples. Some are making thieves out to be heroes because it politically suits them. But a crime is a crime is a crime.


I think you're on to something here Jim. So, in a nutshell: A theft/act of espionage did occur as did the crime of accepting and possessing stolen goods, in this case, the government/peoples "good" ie..top secret documents.

Some folks, believing 2 wrongs make a right so long as it helps to further their political agenda(s), sanction this type of blatently criminal activity. I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and guess that Noir and jafar don't think Manning should be prosecuted for espinoge and treason either.

Aren't Libs the damnest folks!

[logroller]

The more you inject into the debate about criminal actions the more obfuscation you will see to turn him into a hero. Bottom line, and first hurdle to get past - DID theft take place? DID the stolen documents go to Assange. These answers are very clearly yes. No one doubts that Manning "took" these documents and no one doubts that Assange/Wikileaks received the documents. You steal a candy bar and you get charged with petty theft, pay a small fine and have a criminal record. Steal a car and you are charged with felony theft and will be incarcerated for a period of time. This crime is easily worse than both of those theft examples. Some are making thieves out to be heroes because it politically suits them. But a crime is a crime is a crime.

Hold up here; what's the bottom line? When did the first crime occur? It wasn't manning or assange; that came later.
Let me give you an example. Let's say I break into a house and discover a human trafficking operation; if I report that, in no uncertain terms, I have violated the private domain and disseminated information uncovered illegal. Should the police say, b&e, you're going to jail! No need to investigate the operation since it was discovered illegally?
The bottom line is, as i see through your post, its not illegal if the govt does it.
Now that's a commonly held belief, which I think many of us share when it policially suits us...but ask yourself, what differs between that and fast and the furious? Politics I suppose. Kinda sad when citizens' rights take a back seat to political agendas; dontcha think?

Reminds me of a few good men..Col Jessup; "You cant handle the truth...my existence, though grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives..."

[jimnyc]

Hold up here; what's the bottom line? When did the first crime occur? It wasn't manning or assange; that came later.
Let me give you an example. Let's say I break into a house and discover a human trafficking operation; if I report that, in no uncertain terms, I have violated the private domain and disseminated information uncovered illegal. Should the police say, b&e, you're going to jail! No need to investigate the operation since it was discovered illegally?
The bottom line is, as i see through your post, its not illegal if the govt does it.
Now that's a commonly held belief, which I think many of us share when it policially suits us...but ask yourself, what differs between that and fast and the furious? Politics I suppose. Kinda sad when citizens' rights take a back seat to political agendas; dontcha think?

Reminds me of a few good men..Col Jessup; "You cant handle the truth...my existence, though grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives..."

You would be VERY hard pressed to find a post of mine where I defended any actions of the government, especially anything criminal. I do think the government needs to be held accountable, but that hardly absolves other criminals from their actions. And that's what you guys are trying to do, declare innocence on the part of Assange/Manning because they may have exposed illegal activity amongst the endless amount of information they passed along. Neither action should make the other any less legal. It matters not WHEN the information took place. If we're talking about 2 crimes here, if that's what you're getting at, then the crimes need to be handled separately. NOTHING in any of these documents would allow us to ignore the criminal actions that took place to bring them to light. However great some may see these actions, it was still criminal actions that brought them to light. Is that what we're shooting for here in the US? If we can't handle something legally, use criminal actions instead?

As to your analogy, the thief should rightly so be locked up immediately for his criminal actions. If anything was discovered that can legally be held against the victim, then that gets handled separately. But we simply can't tell the thief that we'll get back to him another day as the other crime took place first.

A crime is a crime is a crime. We don't get to pick and choose, and for Any reason declare a crime not a crime - that's what our justice system is for.

[aboutime]

No matter how anyone wants, or needs to see what Assange did. He broke U.S. Federal laws. Two wrongs do not make a Right. Anyone in the military today, who witnesses any member of the military performing any illegal act IS...just as guilty as the offender if the second person SAYS nothing.
But that is now what Assange did with relation to the disclosure of Government, classified materials. Someone provided him access to the classified materials, and he happily published them without regard to what the consequences of such disclosures might do to the American people, or those in the Security agencies who may have been compromised with his disclosures...all in the name of a Wannabe Whistle-blower.
Since he was granted asylum in an Embassy located in the British Isles. He thinks he is safe.

Until the day arrives when he tries to step out on the Soil of Great Britain. Then it is over.

[Drummond]

I see him as a hero. A champion of Freedom of Speech.
So what if the material released makes western leaders look more corrupt than the worst of African tinpot dictators. This kind of checks and balances is what the world needs. Do you really know what unspeakables your government is doing in secret in your name?

For example

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasisquith/2011/09/the-latest-wikileaks-release-may-be-the-worst-one-yet/

And you wonder why "they" hate you.

Jafar, you talk of 'checks and balances'. Isn't the whole point of what Wikileaks has done is that it's set about BUSTING UP those checks and balances ?

Assange has done this to a number of countries .. he's a wrecker. He couldn't have possibly believed that anything other than harm could come from his activities.

And note who his friends and supporters are .. most notably, creatures of the LEFT, such as John Pilger, who I've mentioned previously. Pilger is both anti-British Establishment, and anti-American. He was advocating actions of civil disobedience several years ago, because of American activities in the War on Terror !!

But as for Assange, it's my understanding that though America hasn't been his only victim by any means, he has singled out America for particular focus. No wonder the Left likes him.

Final point. American and UK citizens both elect their Governments, therefore, they elect those who have Governmental influence in the matters that Assange has seen fit to meddle with. So tell me, Jafar, who elected Assange and his friends to THEIR positions, who do THEY democratically represent ?

If the answer is 'nobody did' .. AND IT IS .. then one can argue that Assange has been undemocratic in his attacks, and even that they amount to an assault upon democracy itself.

[Drummond]

No matter how anyone wants, or needs to see what Assange did. He broke U.S. Federal laws. Two wrongs do not make a Right. Anyone in the military today, who witnesses any member of the military performing any illegal act IS...just as guilty as the offender if the second person SAYS nothing.
But that is now what Assange did with relation to the disclosure of Government, classified materials. Someone provided him access to the classified materials, and he happily published them without regard to what the consequences of such disclosures might do to the American people, or those in the Security agencies who may have been compromised with his disclosures...all in the name of a Wannabe Whistle-blower.
Since he was granted asylum in an Embassy located in the British Isles. He thinks he is safe.

Until the day arrives when he tries to step out on the Soil of Great Britain. Then it is over.

Even if he thinks he's safe, he may not be. There IS legislation in British law which would provide (if the UK ever used it) for the Embassy to lose its status as one, in which case, the Embassy would become British soil, therefore fully accessible to our authorities.

This is problematic, though, because if the diplomatic inviolability of foreign Embassies was brought into question more generally, the effect worldwide could be potentially ruinous.

My guess - Westminster will wait .. for a while. If they become convinced that this is too unbreakable a stalemate, though, they will revoke the status of the Embassy and go in to take Assange into custody. I don't believe we'll wait 'forever' before acting.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/17/assange-stalemate-embassy


The British government is threatening to use a 1987 British law it says permits the revocation of diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power occupying it “ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post.” The use of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act however would trigger an international outcry and beg for acts of retaliations.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires diplomats to comply with the laws of the host country and international law does not expressly endorse diplomatic asylum in such cases. That 1961 convention suggests that Ecuador is legally obligated to turn over Assange.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.
When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

Bolded above, tells me what I've been wondering about you. " the blessed mohammed", pretty much says it all!!
While you defend those that murdered over a cartoon being made of that ffing pervert!!
Are you truly a "rugmaster" ?-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I've been disgusted with the Clintons enough over the years, so I'm not going to post either of their words here, but it's interesting to read the take of both of them regarding Wikileaks and Assange. And so much for the vetting of the material, perhaps to minimize or exclude anything that may put lives at risk, Assange's partner left, was fired, and one of his reasons was the rushing out of articles without any type of vetting. Back to the Clintons, look up their statements, these releases placed a whole helluva lot more in danger than just operatives. These cables listed, which is far from an act of whistleblowing, the locations manufacturers of various vaccines (smallpox being the worrisome one), plutonium poisoning and much more but I can't remember... Then the locations of all kinds of underground cables, mineral firms, key communication hubs, and other confidential projects we and others have been involved with in Chine, Middle East, New Zealand... Apparently TONS of infrastructure sites that were held confidential for good reasoning, but far from illegal or any reason whistleblowing would come into play. Basically a nice little potential map for future terrorists.

But the vetting... about 10-12 "employees" of Wikileaks bailed ship all around the same time, because of the direction he was taking the company and how he refused to partake in anything else other than Afghan and Iraqi interests. And they got a little ticked when he wanted to rush out material without appropriate vetting to ensure further lives weren't placed at risk. He simply claimed the "potential" for saved lives outweighed the risks. Now some of them have a bulls eye on them because of Assange running the ship with regard for the safety of anyone, whether them or those from around the world in the releases.

[Dilloduck]

The CIA needs to hire him if he's not already on the payroll.

[Drummond]

Bolded above, tells me what I've been wondering about you. " the blessed mohammed", pretty much says it all!!
While you defend those that murdered over a cartoon being made of that ffing pervert!!
Are you truly a "rugmaster" ?-Tyr

Well spotted, Tyr. The 'blessed' Mohammed ??? What on EARTH are you going on about, Noir ??

[jimnyc]

Tons of these released documents were not of the "whistleblower" variety. They were simply documents meant to be private/privileged and not for public consumption. Leave it at that for a moment while I make a legal comparison...

Many famous people have emails (sound familiar?) that are hacked and/or stolen (sound familiar?). And then these emails are reproduced recklessly for public consumption (sound familiar?). There is no whistleblowing involved and it only served to embarrass the people in the emails.

MANY celebs, and almost in all cases where they fought back, have won their cases. And not only were the hackers/thieves busted and punished, but so were the sites that tried to reproduce the stolen documents. Cease and desists flow heavily and all attempts are made to retract the publishing, and even lawsuits, and many successful, are brought against the sites who solely republished the stolen materials. (sound familiar?)

These are purely looked at as thefts, and rightly so. But when someone does so towards a political person/entity that they don't care for, all of a sudden that theft somehow becomes A-ok. So take out all of the possible illegal things that were exposed via Wikileaks and the Assange/Manning connection. Those made up for a extremely small portion of the documents released. So what we're left with is stolen, private and confidential documents, reproduced for public consumption. Nothing illegal in the extreme overall majority of these documents and no "whistleblower" crap can remotely be connected.

A crime is a crime is a crime, and a thief is a thief.

[jimnyc]

The CIA needs to hire him if he's not already on the payroll.

That's like hiring a bank robber to work in a vault!

[Dilloduck]

Casino's hire the best cheats and con men.

[logroller]

You would be VERY hard pressed to find a post of mine where I defended any actions of the government, especially anything criminal. I do think the government needs to be held accountable, but that hardly absolves other criminals from their actions. And that's what you guys are trying to do, declare innocence on the part of Assange/Manning because they may have exposed illegal activity amongst the endless amount of information they passed along. Neither action should make the other any less legal. It matters not WHEN the information took place. If we're talking about 2 crimes here, if that's what you're getting at, then the crimes need to be handled separately. NOTHING in any of these documents would allow us to ignore the criminal actions that took place to bring them to light. However great some may see these actions, it was still criminal actions that brought them to light. Is that what we're shooting for here in the US? If we can't handle something legally, use criminal actions instead?

As to your analogy, the thief should rightly so be locked up immediately for his criminal actions. If anything was discovered that can legally be held against the victim, then that gets handled separately. But we simply can't tell the thief that we'll get back to him another day as the other crime took place first.

A crime is a crime is a crime. We don't get to pick and choose, and for Any reason declare a crime not a crime - that's what our justice system is for.Oh gimme a break Jim. This isn't about justice, it's about power. Information is power; and assange upset the overhelmingly superior advantage the us govt has. If justice were the mantra of the us government, we'd of paid reparations to Nicaragua over the contra affair; instead we enjoyed the veto power (our's, the sole vote against) of the icj's determination. What's that you said earlier about the accused bing able to determine the validity of charges???


Jafar, you talk of 'checks and balances'. Isn't the whole point of what Wikileaks has done is that it's set about BUSTING UP those checks and balances ?

Assange has done this to a number of countries .. he's a wrecker. He couldn't have possibly believed that anything other than harm could come from his activities.

And note who his friends and supporters are .. most notably, creatures of the LEFT, such as John Pilger, who I've mentioned previously. Pilger is both anti-British Establishment, and anti-American. He was advocating actions of civil disobedience several years ago, because of American activities in the War on Terror !!

But as for Assange, it's my understanding that though America hasn't been his only victim by any means, he has singled out America for particular focus. No wonder the Left likes him.

Final point. American and UK citizens both elect their Governments, therefore, they elect those who have Governmental influence in the matters that Assange has seen fit to meddle with. So tell me, Jafar, who elected Assange and his friends to THEIR positions, who do THEY democratically represent ?

If the answer is 'nobody did' .. AND IT IS .. then one can argue that Assange has been undemocratic in his attacks, and even that they amount to an assault upon democracy itself.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of checks and balances to limit the over zealous agencies of govt; not those who oppose their actions or undermine that zeal.
The exposé of government actions against people to the public being interpreted as subversive of democracy reaks of authoritarianism.


Even if he thinks he's safe, he may not be. There IS legislation in British law which would provide (if the UK ever used it) for the Embassy to lose its status as one, in which case, the Embassy would become British soil, therefore fully accessible to our authorities.

This is problematic, though, because if the diplomatic inviolability of foreign Embassies was brought into question more generally, the effect worldwide could be potentially ruinous.

My guess - Westminster will wait .. for a while. If they become convinced that this is too unbreakable a stalemate, though, they will revoke the status of the Embassy and go in to take Assange into custody. I don't believe we'll wait 'forever' before acting.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/17/assange-stalemate-embassy


I don't discount the authority of the UK to do so; of course they can. He with the greatest power to enforce the rules is in no way bound by them-- that's what assange exposed. But don't try to sell the state's authority as righteous or just; when it's plainly about the power to impose their will.

[jimnyc]

Oh gimme a break Jim. This isn't about justice, it's about power.

Quite frankly, no breaks given, and I don't care what you or anyone "think". The FACT is, both Assange and Manning committed crimes. One is incarcerated and awaiting his day in court, the other is fleeing rather than having his day in court. The fact that they both stole is indisputable, and that makes them criminals. So I'll say "oh, gimme a break logroller" and realize that if someone commits a crime, they need to answer to the courts and have justice determine guilt or innocence. Regardless of his motives or what a great guy you all think he is, he conspired to steal and further disseminated stolen, and confidential arguments. With all the major legalities aside, they are guilty of theft, and this isn't of the petty theft variety. And just as I don't think Obama/Holder should be allowed to avoid the justice system over the Fast and Furious debacle, I don't think these guys should get to avoid the justice system. And then the netx time someone commits a major crime, and some feel he/she did it for noble reasons, it just snowballs. Sorry, a lot of you guys come up on the end of supporting criminals at times, and thinking their intent should absolve them from the law.

We have a justice system, and it's been said many times that it isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. Well, it's the worst we have when we feel certain people are above the law, and based on the feelings of the people determining, they may or may not have to answer for crimes.
I will be sure to shoot out to some of you guys though if I ever get busted for a crime, a good character reference about what a nice criminal I am would be helpful! :lol:

[Dilloduck]

Quite frankly, no breaks given, and I don't care what you or anyone "think". The FACT is, both Assange and Manning committed crimes. One is incarcerated and awaiting his day in court, the other is fleeing rather than having his day in court. The fact that they both stole is indisputable, and that makes them criminals. So I'll say "oh, gimme a break logroller" and realize that if someone commits a crime, they need to answer to the courts and have justice determine guilt or innocence. Regardless of his motives or what a great guy you all think he is, he conspired to steal and further disseminated stolen, and confidential arguments. With all the major legalities aside, they are guilty of theft, and this isn't of the petty theft variety. And just as I don't think Obama/Holder should be allowed to avoid the justice system over the Fast and Furious debacle, I don't think these guys should get to avoid the justice system. And then the netx time someone commits a major crime, and some feel he/she did it for noble reasons, it just snowballs. Sorry, a lot of you guys come up on the end of supporting criminals at times, and thinking their intent should absolve them from the law.

We have a justice system, and it's been said many times that it isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. Well, it's the worst we have when we feel certain people are above the law, and based on the feelings of the people determining, they may or may not have to answer for crimes.
I will be sure to shoot out to some of you guys though if I ever get busted for a crime, a good character reference about what a nice criminal I am would be helpful! :lol:

Assange broke a law to expose lawbreakers. Even you have to admit this isn't a clear cut case.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

People forget just how important it is for justice to be blind! We may feel for the guy that steals to feed his family but it doesnt not void the crime of stealing that he did. In this case nothing so noble as sacrificing ones freedom/security to feed starving children. The two culprits both acted out of personal beliefs/desires to usurp aothority in order to give authority/power to a different entity, not for some grand ideal of justice but for personal reasons. They are not heroes but rather closer to self-absorbed zeroes that caused great harm and Im sure a few deaths even.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

People forget just how important it is for justice to be blind! We may feel for the guy that steals to feed his family but it doesnt not void the crime of stealing that he did. In this case nothing so noble as sacrificing ones freedom/security to feed starving children. The two culprits both acted out of personal beliefs/desires to usurp aothority in order to give authority/power to a different entity, not for some grand ideal of justice but for personal reasons. They are not heroes but rather closer to self-absorbed zeroes that caused great harm and Im sure a few deaths even.-Tyr

You aren't even close to being qualified to determine motive.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Assange broke a law to expose lawbreakers. Even you have to admit this isn't a clear cut case.

Bull .. Manning should be shot!! Assange should either be shot or jailed for life. The destruction their actions have caused , very likely even deaths to undercover agents(especially ours) should insure that Manning be shot! Give him his day in court , if he is found to be guilty , pronounce execution of death by firing squad and I'd do it for free.. He is a certified traitor! A man either has principles and loyalty or he doesnt! Every true traitor of every stripe should suffer immensely. His was no noble act and it is silly as hell to declare it so IMHO.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Bull .. Manning should be shot!! Assange should either be shot or jailed for life. The destruction their actions have caused , very likely even deaths to undercover agents(especially ours) should insure that Manning be shot! Give him his day in court , if he is found to be guilty , pronounce execution of death by firing squad and I'd do it for free.. He is a certified traitor! A man either has principles and loyalty or he doesnt! Every true traitor of every stripe should suffer immensely. His was no noble act and it is silly as hell to declare it so IMHO.-Tyr

you've already convicted Assange. Why should he bother turning himself in?

[jimnyc]

Assange broke a law to expose lawbreakers. Even you have to admit this isn't a clear cut case.

The matter with lawmakers, and whether a case should be made against anything exposed, is another matter. And if crimes were committed, those people too should face justice. But like you said above, Assange committed a crime in doing so. There's no such thing as a law being overlooked based on intent. And lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of documents released that exposed nothing criminal at all, but were still stolen.

[jimnyc]

you've already convicted Assange. Why should he bother turning himself in?

I personally think he is guilty, but it's up to a court to determine all of the facts and determine guilt or innocence, whether that be a judge or a jury.

[Dilloduck]

The matter with lawmakers, and whether a case should be made against anything exposed, is another matter. And if crimes were committed, those people too should face justice. But like you said above, Assange committed a crime in doing so. There's no such thing as a law being overlooked based on intent. And lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of documents released that exposed nothing criminal at all, but were still stolen.

I doubt the man will ever receive due process but the jury can nullify the law should they feel it warranted.

[logroller]

Quite frankly, no breaks given, and I don't care what you or anyone "think". The FACT is, both Assange and Manning committed crimes. One is incarcerated and awaiting his day in court, the other is fleeing rather than having his day in court. The fact that they both stole is indisputable, and that makes them criminals. So I'll say "oh, gimme a break logroller" and realize that if someone commits a crime, they need to answer to the courts and have justice determine guilt or innocence. Regardless of his motives or what a great guy you all think he is, he conspired to steal and further disseminated stolen, and confidential arguments. With all the major legalities aside, they are guilty of theft, and this isn't of the petty theft variety. And just as I don't think Obama/Holder should be allowed to avoid the justice system over the Fast and Furious debacle, I don't think these guys should get to avoid the justice system. And then the netx time someone commits a major crime, and some feel he/she did it for noble reasons, it just snowballs. Sorry, a lot of you guys come up on the end of supporting criminals at times, and thinking their intent should absolve them from the law.

We have a justice system, and it's been said many times that it isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. Well, it's the worst we have when we feel certain people are above the law, and based on the feelings of the people determining, they may or may not have to answer for crimes.
I will be sure to shoot out to some of you guys though if I ever get busted for a crime, a good character reference about what a nice criminal I am would be helpful! :lol:
Ive said they (assange/manning) were criminals-- never even disputed it-- break given! Now what say you of the contra affair-- was the US deserving of a break? Here i see it much the same way, only now there's clear evidence of crimes committed by several parties. You say two crimes don't make a right; but where justice is unilaterally applied, is that justice? If you say yes, or some other "well, it ain't perfect", you insult the sentiments of America, where justice and liberty are for all!:salute:

[jimnyc]

I doubt the man will ever receive due process but the jury can nullify the law should they feel it warranted.

A jury can find him not guilty of charges but they can't nullify a law.

[jimnyc]

Ive said they (assange/manning) were criminals-- never even disputed it-- break given! Now what say you of the contra affair-- was the US deserving of a break? Here i see it much the same way, only now there's clear evidence of crimes committed by several parties. You say two crimes don't make a right; but where justice is unilaterally applied, is that justice? If you say yes, or some other "well, it ain't perfect", you insult the sentiments of America, where justice and liberty are for all!:salute:

As to the bold, then they both should be willing to face the justice system. Whatever the reasoning for their crimes, they still need to answer for them and allow a court to determine if any punishment and how severe. And it's not that 2 crimes don't make a right, but that if a crime is committed, and there is evidence to bring forth charges, then I feel the person/people should answer to a court and let them determine guilt or innocence, and if any leniency is deserved. I just don't think anyone should be allowed to thumb their nose and claim to be above the justice system.

But now that you have outright stated that Assange is a criminal.... I won't debate the Swedish case, but if their justice system is similar to ours, I think he should go and prove himself innocent if that's the case. And if any charges are in fact leveled against him in the US, he should answer to them. Or at least no one should complain if he is swooped up elsewhere and extradited back to the states to answer to his crime.

[Voted4Reagan]

Nice to see that Ecuador supports harboring accused Rapists and Sexual Abusers....

There is a reason they are still in the Third World.....

Assange BOUGHT his Asylum... you can bank on it.....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nice to see that Ecuador supports harboring accused Rapists and Sexual Abusers....

There is a reason they are still in the Third World.....

Assange BOUGHT his Asylum... you can bank on it.....

Or the word came down from the globalist powers that be to give him Asylum....
Im sure that he works either for or in league with the globalists.-Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

What does this say to Sweden? I think it's a complete slap in the face.

That a Third world country can usurp the laws and national Sovereignty of another nation for what appears to be nothing more then a money grab by a few powerful elites is insanity!

If I were Sweden I'd pull my ambassador and consulates from this backwater and keep em out until Assange is returned to Stand Trial.

If he is Fairly Acquitted then he can seek his ASYLUM...

Right now all he is doing is buying his way out of Jail....

[logroller]

As to the bold, then they both should be willing to face the justice system. Whatever the reasoning for their crimes, they still need to answer for them and allow a court to determine if any punishment and how severe. And it's not that 2 crimes don't make a right, but that if a crime is committed, and there is evidence to bring forth charges, then I feel the person/people should answer to a court and let them determine guilt or innocence, and if any leniency is deserved. I just don't think anyone should be allowed to thumb their nose and claim to be above the justice system.

But now that you have outright stated that Assange is a criminal.... I won't debate the Swedish case, but if their justice system is similar to ours, I think he should go and prove himself innocent if that's the case. And if any charges are in fact leveled against him in the US, he should answer to them. Or at least no one should complain if he is swooped up elsewhere and extradited back to the states to answer to his crime.
Well hold on, I said nothing about which case he was guilty; as I do think the Swedish case has a high likelihood of being concocted to circumvent political asylum claims. Hard to say really, with all these different countries involved, it's difficult to ascertain which law, treaty and diplomatic conditions apply at any given moment. The us and equator, for example, do have a treaty which dates back to the fifties concerning political asylum. I'm not aware of any such agreements in Europe.

A jury can find him not guilty of charges but they can't nullify a law.
Ah snap. I'm glad someone brought this up. Jury nullification is not a right of the jury; however, it is a power of the jury....Kinda like a government spying on its own people. When no other available means are available to the jury that wouldn't violate their own conscience; they have the power to reach a not guilty verdict in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That alone does not nullify a law, but when a chain of acquittals develop it has a de facto effect of nullifying the law itself. It was used by American colonists to resist what was perceived as oppressive laws of Great Britain.

[logroller]

What does this say to Sweden? I think it's a complete slap in the face.

That a Third world country can usurp the laws and national Sovereignty of another nation for what appears to be nothing more then a money grab by a few powerful elites is insanity!

If I were Sweden I'd pull my ambassador and consulates from this backwater and keep em out until Assange is returned to Stand Trial.

If he is Fairly Acquitted then he can seek his ASYLUM...

Right now all he is doing is buying his way out of Jail....
What's your take in the contra affair in Nicaragua? Where the US was found guilty of a variety of international crimes...but we paid no reparations; instead, we were allowed to veto the findings of fact.

[jimnyc]

Well hold on, I said nothing about which case he was guilty; as I do think the Swedish case has a high likelihood of being concocted to circumvent political asylum claims. Hard to say really, with all these different countries involved, it's difficult to ascertain which law, treaty and diplomatic conditions apply at any given moment. The us and equator, for example, do have a treaty which dates back to the fifties concerning political asylum. I'm not aware of any such agreements in Europe.

I was assuming your guilt comment was in reference to the theft of the documents, since you referenced both being criminals, and Manning had nothing to do with anything in Sweden. From what I understand, the case in Sweden appears to be weak on the face, but however weak a case may be doesn't give a defendant the right to ignore and/or run from justice. Even the most ardent of their supporters would have to bite their tongues if they claim that neither Manning or Assange didn't steal or conspire to steal anything. There can be tons of debate on the seriousness of the theft, but the theft in itself is clear to me. Manning has been charged already and is awaiting his day in court. If and when Assange should be charged with anything, then I think any country we have treaties with, would be responsible to extradite him back the the US to have him face our justice system.

As for Sweden, I can't say with any certainty as I really don't know their laws and justice system. But if anything like ours, then however weak the case against him may be, he is still responsible to respond to the court and have justice make a determination.

[Dilloduck]

If Sweden wants him so badly for the crimes he allegedly committed there, all they have to do is agree not to pass him on to the US. But they won't. What a shocker.

[jimnyc]

If Sweden wants him so badly for the crimes he allegedly committed there, all they have to do is agree not to pass him on to the US. But they won't. What a shocker.

Because they shouldn't have to make any such agreement. They have an extradition treaty with the US, as Sweden does with the UK. Why should they agree to break a treaty to have someone answer to the courts and have the justice system determine guilt/innocence?

Everyone seems hell bent on he can't get a fair trial, they think things are concocted in Sweden and all this other crap. NONE of that absolves him from the responsibilities he has once charged.

If a cop beat me up in public, and 3,000 people have it on videotape. There is irrefutable proof that he snuck up behind me and hit me in the head with a baton and knocked me out cold. And then further charges ME with assault on a police officer. Even with all of these videotapes, and the obvious innocence - I still have to answer to the courts. As soon as we start determining when those accused of crimes and skip out on charges because of intent or lack of proof, then the justice system goes down the shitter.

[Dilloduck]

Because they shouldn't have to make any such agreement. They have an extradition treaty with the US, as Sweden does with the UK. Why should they agree to break a treaty to have someone answer to the courts and have the justice system determine guilt/innocence?

Everyone seems hell bent on he can't get a fair trial, they think things are concocted in Sweden and all this other crap. NONE of that absolves him from the responsibilities he has once charged.

If a cop beat me up in public, and 3,000 people have it on videotape. There is irrefutable proof that he snuck up behind me and hit me in the head with a baton and knocked me out cold. And then further charges ME with assault on a police officer. Even with all of these videotapes, and the obvious innocence - I still have to answer to the courts. As soon as we start determining when those accused of crimes and skip out on charges because of intent or lack of proof, then the justice system goes down the shitter.

Fine---then they will adhere to their principals but the Swedish women will not get to see justice done.

[jimnyc]

Fine---then they will adhere to their principals but the Swedish women will not get to see justice done.

They most certainly will. No one is saying they should extradite him prior to any findings in Sweden, or determination of innocence or guilt. Hell, if he was extradited today, the talk about further extraditing him to the US is a moot point as he hasn't be charged with any crimes here and there is no warrant for him. There is more then enough time for justice to occur in Sweden if he didn't continue to run from the rule of law.

[Dilloduck]

They most certainly will. No one is saying they should extradite him prior to any findings in Sweden, or determination of innocence or guilt. Hell, if he was extradited today, the talk about further extraditing him to the US is a moot point as he hasn't be charged with any crimes here and there is no warrant for him. There is more then enough time for justice to occur in Sweden if he didn't continue to run from the rule of law.

Of course they aren't saying it. They would be giving away plan. Cmon Jim---the guy may be a crook to you but he ain't stupid.

[logroller]

They most certainly will. No one is saying they should extradite him prior to any findings in Sweden, or determination of innocence or guilt. Hell, if he was extradited today, the talk about further extraditing him to the US is a moot point as he hasn't be charged with any crimes here and there is no warrant for him. There is more then enough time for justice to occur in Sweden if he didn't continue to run from the rule of law.
Do you disagree with political asylum in all circumstances?

[jimnyc]

Of course they aren't saying it. They would be giving away plan. Cmon Jim---the guy may be a crook to you but he ain't stupid.

The case in front of the Swedish judicial system is a few weeks at best, perhaps shorter. If the US were looking to extradite him, I'm sure they wouldn't mind waiting a week or 2, considering there aren't even any charges yet. And being the entire world is watching, I have no doubt they would allow the Swedes to do their thing before doing anything. Hell, if Assange wants, THAT they can agree to, to guarantee to the gals that their case will for sure be heard before any extraditions take place.

[jimnyc]

Do you disagree with political asylum in all circumstances?

Political asylum wasn't something created to protect criminals. Look at the US stats alone, and the refugees we may grant asylum to, and it's generally not to criminals looking to avoid the justice system. I think the USA has the best and fairest judicial system in the world, and the most open.

[jimnyc]

Some see the rule of law for what it is...


Julian Assange row: Britain seeking diplomatic solution in Ecuador standoff

Downing Street says it is obliged by law to extradite Assange to Sweden and 'it is our intention to carry out that obligation'

Downing Street has said Britain is still committed to seeking a diplomatic solution with Ecuador in the standoff over the proposed extradition to Sweden of Julian Assange.

But British diplomats in the Ecuadorean capital, Quito, and in other regional capitals have communicated the message that David Cameron is adamant Assange will not be granted safe passage. They say Britain is under a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct.

The government's thinking was outlined by the prime minister's spokesman at the weekly Downing Street lobby briefing. The spokesman said: "Our hope is that we can reach a diplomatic solution and we are doing what we can to achieve that.

"We will not grant safe passage for Mr Assange. Under our law, having exhausted all the options of appeal, we are obliged to extradite him to Sweden. It is our intention to carry out that obligation. We will continue talking to the Ecuadorean government and others to try and find a diplomatic solution here."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/julian-assange-britain-ecuador-standoff

[logroller]

Political asylum wasn't something created to protect criminals. Look at the US stats alone, and the refugees we may grant asylum to, and it's generally not to criminals looking to avoid the justice system. I think the USA has the best and fairest judicial system in the world, and the most open.
In a sense, you're right. Asylum was not meant to be used to avoid common law violations. Persecution (political, racial etc) is the reasoning for granting asylum. Hence why, IMO, there is reason to believe the sex charges (a common law violation) would/could be fabricated to circumvent asylum and find a extradition- favorable venue.
Lets take a recent example, that blind Chinese lawyer who was convicted of a crime (criticizing the government) and serving his (indefinite) sentence under house arrest. He escaped to a us consulate and was granted asylum, and is now in the US. He was a criminal, convicted no less. Was that asylum granted merely because his escape was done surreptitiously after the conviction? What if the punishment were death or life in a box instead-- with no escape possible-- thus no asylum. Tough luck?
In your opinion, What conditions need to met before asylum is granted?

[Dilloduck]

Some see the rule of law for what it is...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/julian-assange-britain-ecuador-standoff

No doubt there are laws protecting persons in an embassy who has been granted asylum and laws governing what a host country is allowed to do regarding foreign embassies.Lawyers make big bucks arguing these things in court.

[Drummond]

No doubt there are laws protecting persons in an embassy who has been granted asylum and laws governing what a host country is allowed to do regarding foreign embassies.Lawyers make big bucks arguing these things in court.

Yes. Correct. However, that's not the point.

The issue is whether or not the British Government removes the status of the embassy to BE such. If the Ecuadorian Embassy has its status to operate as one removed from it, it ceases to qualify as one. At that point, the premises can be entered, its diplomatic 'status' having been legally voided.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/the-inviolability-diplomatic-and-consular-premises



Inviolability guarantees the sanctity of diplomatic and consular premises.

While it does not place premises above the law, anybody who remains on diplomatic or consular premises can take refuge from the law.

The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 ('the Act') is the vehicle for reforming the government's powers for dealing with the abuse of diplomatic and consular premises.

Under the Act where premises are misused, their diplomatic or consular status may be lost, together with all concomitant rights, (including inviolability).

[Drummond]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of checks and balances to limit the over zealous agencies of govt; not those who oppose their actions or undermine that zeal.

The exposé of government actions against people to the public being interpreted as subversive of democracy reaks of authoritarianism.

Two points. One, publicising sensitive material has consequences. Assange could not possibly have imagined that the Wikileaks disseminations would be anything other than harmful, even dangerous. But that didn't deter him in the slightest, did it ?

Assange MEANT TO CAUSE HARM .. and we may further infer this from the support he enjoys from figures who themselves are self-styled opposition against America.

Second point .. who voted for Assange ? Assange is taking on the activities of democratically elected Governments .. isn't he ? Diplomats and intelligence services are governed by those who've been voted into power. But nobody voted for Assange, and nobody democratically appointed anyone to require Assange to do what he's done. So, I think reasonably, I believe you can regard Assange's activities as an assault upon democratic process, even if only indirectly.


I don't discount the authority of the UK to do so; of course they can. He with the greatest power to enforce the rules is in no way bound by them-- that's what assange exposed. But don't try to sell the state's authority as righteous or just; when it's plainly about the power to impose their will.

Assange is trying to make himself unaccountable to legal process. Why is he so desperate to avoid his day in court in Sweden ? For as long as he thought he could use legal process to serve him, he did so, launching appeal after appeal to avoid extradition. When it became clear that he wasn't getting the results he needed, so he instead took this extreme step .. to avoid culpability to the Swedish courts. To Assange .. laws are to be respected only when they work in his favour !!

But then, isn't this typical of what's driven Assange ?? He somehow feels he should be immune from any dire consequences he's happy to mete out to others, through his disgusting irresponsibility. And he's taken this further by, now, trying to shield himself FROM DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Perhaps someone can tell me why Assange should be so special that he has the 'right' to defy whatever standards, moralities, and laws, he chooses to, while us other mere mortals have no such rights ?

[jimnyc]

In a sense, you're right. Asylum was not meant to be used to avoid common law violations. Persecution (political, racial etc) is the reasoning for granting asylum. Hence why, IMO, there is reason to believe the sex charges (a common law violation) would/could be fabricated to circumvent asylum and find a extradition- favorable venue.
Lets take a recent example, that blind Chinese lawyer who was convicted of a crime (criticizing the government) and serving his (indefinite) sentence under house arrest. He escaped to a us consulate and was granted asylum, and is now in the US. He was a criminal, convicted no less. Was that asylum granted merely because his escape was done surreptitiously after the conviction? What if the punishment were death or life in a box instead-- with no escape possible-- thus no asylum. Tough luck?
In your opinion, What conditions need to met before asylum is granted?

Criticizing a government and serving an indefinite sentence would easily be persecution on political beliefs, and China is known for having criminal hearings behind closed doors and finding people guilty in a single hearing. But all that's trying to be done here is obfuscating things. Let's stick to talking about the Assange case instead of coming up with other case scenarios. Not all asylum cases can possibly be the same and an opinion on a singular case shouldn't therefore carry out to another. Outside of commie countries that have rule of law like that, I don't think we should, or others should, be granting asylum to people so they can avoid the justice system.

[jimnyc]

No doubt there are laws protecting persons in an embassy who has been granted asylum and laws governing what a host country is allowed to do regarding foreign embassies.Lawyers make big bucks arguing these things in court.

Protections within that embassy and protections once in the other country. This is why athletes and such sneak away from teams, there is no obligation for other countries to guarantee their passage. The UK has a treaty to abide by first and foremost. Sure thing that they can bring this into the legal system, but I'm confident they'll lose. Assange has already had quite a few court proceedings to fight his extradition to Sweden and lost. Then he sought asylum. I don't think UK courts are going to change their minds on whether or not they'll agree to the extradition. And their law enforcement side has a duty to deliver him to Sweden. Luckily, the UK believes in the rule of law, and they're not going to bend, or allow the extradition to be circumvented.

[Drummond]

Protections within that embassy and protections once in the other country. This is why athletes and such sneak away from teams, there is no obligation for other countries to guarantee their passage. The UK has a treaty to abide by first and foremost. Sure thing that they can bring this into the legal system, but I'm confident they'll lose. Assange has already had quite a few court proceedings to fight his extradition to Sweden and lost. Then he sought asylum. I don't think UK courts are going to change their minds on whether or not they'll agree to the extradition. And their law enforcement side has a duty to deliver him to Sweden. Luckily, the UK believes in the rule of law, and they're not going to bend, or allow the extradition to be circumvented.

Exactly, Jim. I believe our authorities will do what can be done to try and resolve this diplomatically. But regardless, there is just no way that they'll cave in on the extradition issue. We do NOT bend on such things. Ultimately, what must be done to ensure this is properly resolved, WILL be done.

[jimnyc]

Exactly, Jim. I believe our authorities will do what can be done to try and resolve this diplomatically. But regardless, there is just no way that they'll cave in on the extradition issue. We do NOT bend on such things. Ultimately, what must be done to ensure this is properly resolved, WILL be done.

Good, I'm hoping you are right. Too many think the rule of law can be overlooked on occasion, depending on whether they feel the circumstances warrant it. We'll need a 2nd justice system if we go that route. Every criminal will hide and run from the justice system citing the prior case and that they can't get a fair trial or that the criminal action they took exposed other criminal actions. Who knows who the arbiter of all of this will be. Do we allow the individuals themselves to determine if they'll follow the courts orders, or do we setup a panel to determine whether or not those running from the law have a legit reason to or not. Here in the US, on occasion, cops are told to "overlook" certain infractions and crimes. Why have them then? And why would some be worthy of being overlooked but the next schmuck has to answer to the courts? And if I get a speeding ticket, does a politician also deserve one if he's pulled over? These kinds of things are getting worse. Everyone should be held accountable equally. And if it involves things between countries, the way the countries hand them must be up to a certain standard as well, otherwise there is no point in having treaties.

Some say the case in Sweden is without merit. Good, then Assange should be able to answer to the court and easily have that case placed behind them. If the US makes a play for extradition, then Assange can fight it on a grand stage, with the whole world watching. If enough evidence exists, Sweden will extradite. The next stage would make the prior grand stage small in comparison. Every court related pundit and TV station and notable lawyer will be on hand for any Assange proceedings. I'm confident any proceedings would be about documents he has released. If he's released them, there's no reason to now hide anything or make any portions of them secret to the proceedings. Assange would be free to get the best legal defense money can buy. All of the facts and arguments hit the court and a judge/jury makes a decision.

Many stated OJ would never get a fair trial after the amount of things were released to the public, and his notoriety. Many said Casey Anthony couldn't get a fair trial, that she was far too demonized in that area. Lorena Bobbitt cuts off her husbands penis, how can it be anything other than what was laughed about for eons before the trial. R. Kelly, a famous musician/rapper charged with having sex with a minor - which was on videotape, found not guilty. Michael Jackson's child molestation trial, everyone said he couldn't get a far trial, he was convicted by the court of public opinion going in. We know how that case ended. LA cops caught on video pulverizing Rodney King, found not guilty.

That's not an endorsement that somewhat obviously guilty people can and will get away with crimes. But it shows that no case is decided before it hits the courts. Let THEM decide the case as it's presented to them, if it is. The "I can't get a fair trial so I'll hide in another country" simply doesn't come close in this case.

[jimnyc]

It appears that Assange was in Sweden for a bit of time after the charges were brought forth to the public. He even met with investigators in person while there a week or 2 after the charges. If this were a sham, and a front to get him there to extradite him, why didn't they do something back then to hold him? Why did they allow him to go free? Maybe the charges don't hold water in that case, but I just don't see any water being held in saying that they want him in Sweden just so they can extradite him. If they were working underhandedly, they could very easily have just held him back then.

[jimnyc]

Additionally, are we to believe that the UK is complicit in anything underhanded to get Assange to answer for alleged crimes? An initial court decision granted extradition on the basis that his human rights would not be violated by extraditing him to Sweden. He appealed this decision, which was one judge, and 2 judges at a higher court in London upheld the lower courts decision. Assange then appealed to the UK Supreme Court. 5 more judges, to 2 in the minority, further upheld the lower courts decisions. He then appealed the SC decision which was unanimously dismissed by the UK SC as being without merit.

All part of a conspiracy? Or judges following the rule of law?

[logroller]

Criticizing a government and serving an indefinite sentence would easily be persecution on political beliefs, and China is known for having criminal hearings behind closed doors and finding people guilty in a single hearing. But all that's trying to be done here is obfuscating things. Let's stick to talking about the Assange case instead of coming up with other case scenarios. Not all asylum cases can possibly be the same and an opinion on a singular case shouldn't therefore carry out to another. Outside of commie countries that have rule of law like that, I don't think we should, or others should, be granting asylum to people so they can avoid the justice system.
Cough...gitmo...cough. Seriously Jim, court proceeding are routinely closed to the public on national security matters. But under what circumstances/conditions is asylum granted?
After a trial?

[logroller]

Additionally, are we to believe that the UK is complicit in anything underhanded to get Assange to answer for alleged crimes? An initial court decision granted extradition on the basis that his human rights would not be violated by extraditing him to Sweden. He appealed this decision, which was one judge, and 2 judges at a higher court in London upheld the lower courts decision. Assange then appealed to the UK Supreme Court. 5 more judges, to 2 in the minority, further upheld the lower courts decisions. He then appealed the SC decision which was unanimously dismissed by the UK SC as being without merit.

All part of a conspiracy? Or judges following the rule of law?

I'd tell you, but matters of national security prevent me from doing so!

[logroller]

Exactly, Jim. I believe our authorities will do what can be done to try and resolve this diplomatically. But regardless, there is just no way that they'll cave in on the extradition issue. We do NOT bend on such things. Ultimately, what must be done to ensure this is properly resolved, WILL be done.
Indeed. Western supremacy is unyielding-- regardless of the hypocrisy of lawful applicaton or equity.

Still no comment on the contra findings and inviolability of treaty laws among nation states...big surprise-- it's damning to your high and mighty opinion in this matter among others.

[jimnyc]

Cough...gitmo...cough. Seriously Jim, court proceeding are routinely closed to the public on national security matters. But under what circumstances/conditions is asylum granted?
After a trial?

Anything he will get charged with will likely be about materials he released and are still available to the public at this moment. And I don't think "It might be a closed court" is a legitimate legal challenge to avoid extradition or justice.

I suppose this is where I agree to disagree, I've got no need to answer questions only to have further scenarios injected that don't even exist. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens.

[jimnyc]

I'd tell you, but matters of national security prevent me from doing so!

And another reason as to why I'll avoid further questions not even a part of the case, when legit questions and FACTS are tossed aside.

[Drummond]

Indeed. Western supremacy is unyielding-- regardless of the hypocrisy of lawful applicaton or equity.

Still no comment on the contra findings and inviolability of treaty laws among nation states...big surprise-- it's damning to your high and mighty opinion in this matter among others.

... Shifting the goalposts in this debate just a teensy bit ?

The issue is clear. Assange has an accusation to answer in Sweden. He used our legal system to FIGHT having to do so. That didn't work out in his favour, so now, he's taking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy, preferring to ask for asylum rather than face a Swedish court ! And, after all this evasion, ALL this twisting and turning .. and this, from someone trying to ridiculously claim a moral high ground from acting EXTREMELY disreputably .... in the face of ALL of this outrageous absurdity, you think that the focus on disreputability should shift AWAY from Assange ?

Tut tut.

[logroller]

... Shifting the goalposts in this debate just a teensy bit ?

The issue is clear. Assange has an accusation to answer in Sweden. He used our legal system to FIGHT having to do so. That didn't work out in his favour, so now, he's taking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy, preferring to ask for asylum rather than face a Swedish court ! And, after all this evasion, ALL this twisting and turning .. and this, from someone trying to ridiculously claim a moral high ground from acting EXTREMELY disreputably .... in the face of ALL of this outrageous absurdity, you think that the focus on disreputability should shift AWAY from Assange ?

Tut tut.
Your position is clear. Regardless of what government does, theyre still the authority. I get that. Regardless of motive, or the acts of govt being illegal, it doesn't discount what assange did, but I know for a fact, all the violations of international and domestic laws committed by govts will go unaddressed by the justice system. It's hypocritical. I've not moved the goalpost one iota-- merely asked you to clarify the interrelations of treaties regarding extradition and asylum. You just default to-- he has to go to trial--everybody is bound by the law and justice must be served. Ok, so I ask why the contra affair went unenforced. Is not the us govt bound by law? You and jim say that's different, unrelated-- completely oblivious (or intentionally ignorant) of a long chain of executive power abuses, congressional aquiescince and judicial tolerance spanning nearly fifty years and growing progressively more bold. Just hours after Osama was killed, obama named the covert team, divulged sources and completely undermined any intel collected at the scene -- completely compromising operational security. Will this go punished? No sooner than the domestic spying will. No-- we'll burn assange and manning at the stake, whilst the minions march on. Thats what im pissed about. Send a drone into the Equadorian embassy for all I care. Im not trying to protect criminals; im trying to get them all to secure freedom and justice for all. I'll proudly stand with you in your demand for justice against assange if you'll stand with me in my demand for justice against the governments' actions of domestic spying. What say you?
In fifty years of covert operations deemed necessary to national security, are we more secure? Its a necessary question to ask, and before you say, it's a different world now, take pause to remember its a world that post wwii western policies played an integral role in shaping.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your position is clear. Regardless of what government does, theyre still the authority. I get that. Regardless of motive, or the acts of govt being illegal, it doesn't discount what assange did, but I know for a fact, all the violations of international and domestic laws committed by govts will go unaddressed by the justice system. It's hypocritical. I've not moved the goalpost one iota-- merely asked you to clarify the interrelations of treaties regarding extradition and asylum. You just default to-- he has to go to trial--everybody is bound by the law and justice must be served. Ok, so I ask why the contra affair went unenforced. Is not the us govt bound by law? You and jim say that's different, unrelated-- completely oblivious (or intentionally ignorant) of a long chain of executive power abuses, congressional aquiescince and judicial tolerance spanning nearly fifty years and growing progressively more bold. Just hours after Osama was killed, obama named the covert team, divulged sources and completely undermined any intel collected at the scene -- completely compromising operational security. Will this go punished? No sooner than the domestic spying will. No-- we'll burn assange and manning at the stake, whilst the minions march on. Thats what im pissed about. Send a drone into the Equadorian embassy for all I care. Im not trying to protect criminals; im trying to get them all to secure freedom and justice for all. I'll proudly stand with you in your demand for justice against assange if you'll stand with me in my demand for justice against the governments' actions of domestic spying. What say you?
In fifty years of covert operations deemed necessary to national security, are we more secure? Its a necessary question to ask, and before you say, it's a different world now, take pause to remember its a world that post wwii western policies played an integral role in shaping.

Assange and Manning ARE NOT INNOCENT people taking a Sunday stroll my friend. Apparently they have done this to wage war on --National governments- possibly because as globalists they believe in no nation states , no borders. Regardless of why they broke the law and caused great harm the fact remains that they did willfully do so. They must face the music. Opera if you like but "music" nonetheless. Let them dance to their hearts content but the music must be faced and sooner rather than later....-Tyr

edit- note : I do not disagree with your premise about how our government has ignored and broke our laws willy nilly with utter contempt for our Contitution often. I just disagree that these two were trying to exspose that alone and that they should get by with such damage to so many other innocent parties..

[logroller]

Assange and Manning ARE NOT INNOCENT people taking a Sunday stroll my friend. Apparently they have done this to wage war on --National governments- possibly because as globalists they believe in no nation states , no borders. Regardless of why they broke the law and caused great harm the fact remains that they did willfully do so. They must face the music. Opera if you like but "music" nonetheless. Let them dance to their hearts content but the music must be faced and sooner rather than later....-Tyr

edit- note : I do not disagree with your premise about how our government has ignored and broke our laws willy nilly with utter contempt for our Contitution often. I just disagree that these two were trying to exspose that alone and that they should get by with such damage to so many other innocent parties..

Tyr, I get it; I do. I defended our govt attacking a charge dodger in Yemen. What I'm trying to convey is the international laws which we and others ascribe to have been violated by us, yet we expect another country to respect our system of justice. Its more than a tad hypocritical. Im not saying we should yield to foreign powers and rogue agents, far from it; but by the same token, don't expect another country, like Equador, to kowtow to our demands for justice.

[Voted4Reagan]

What's your take in the contra affair in Nicaragua? Where the US was found guilty of a variety of international crimes...but we paid no reparations; instead, we were allowed to veto the findings of fact.

my take on the Contras? After 30 years my position remains the same...

We funded the Contras to fight the elements of the pro-communist Sandinistas invading the American Sphere. It was done to in an oblique way to actually enforce the Monroe Doctrine that prohibits any foreign influence in the Americas.

So while it was against the laws of Congress (a Liberal one in 1985/1986) the cause was just and the outcome was far better in the long run for stabilityin the region and it prevented the Soviets from developing a puppet state on our doorstep. ICBMS were bad in Cuba in 1962...but ICBMS in Pro-Communist Nicaragua would have been far worse. The missiles were far more advanced in 1985 and could easily have hit any city in the USA or Canada.

Those responsible paid the price.. Ollie North took the blame and the American people realized that in the long run the outcome justified the means.

Ollie North became a hero and the libby peaceniks that appeased the commie Sandinistas were made to look weak and foolish

[Drummond]

Your position is clear. Regardless of what government does, theyre still the authority. I get that. Regardless of motive, or the acts of govt being illegal, it doesn't discount what assange did, but I know for a fact, all the violations of international and domestic laws committed by govts will go unaddressed by the justice system. It's hypocritical. I've not moved the goalpost one iota-- merely asked you to clarify the interrelations of treaties regarding extradition and asylum. You just default to-- he has to go to trial--everybody is bound by the law and justice must be served. Ok, so I ask why the contra affair went unenforced. Is not the us govt bound by law? You and jim say that's different, unrelated-- completely oblivious (or intentionally ignorant) of a long chain of executive power abuses, congressional aquiescince and judicial tolerance spanning nearly fifty years and growing progressively more bold. Just hours after Osama was killed, obama named the covert team, divulged sources and completely undermined any intel collected at the scene -- completely compromising operational security. Will this go punished? No sooner than the domestic spying will. No-- we'll burn assange and manning at the stake, whilst the minions march on. Thats what im pissed about. Send a drone into the Equadorian embassy for all I care. Im not trying to protect criminals; im trying to get them all to secure freedom and justice for all. I'll proudly stand with you in your demand for justice against assange if you'll stand with me in my demand for justice against the governments' actions of domestic spying. What say you?
In fifty years of covert operations deemed necessary to national security, are we more secure? Its a necessary question to ask, and before you say, it's a different world now, take pause to remember its a world that post wwii western policies played an integral role in shaping.

Logroller, your preferred stand on Assange, whether for or against him, is ultimately for you to decide. I have my view, and evidently you have yours.

I looked up the 'Contra affair' .. and I see it goes back DECADES ! Now, to make the argument - even presupposing that everything to do with it was reprehensible, and in fact I am NOT trying to give a view on it here !! - that a political situation going back decades, something that's now effectively ancient history, should TODAY have any bearing on Ecuador and her behaviour, is just absurd. There is no link whatever between the two, and anyone attempting to infer that there should be one is playing a 'blame game' taken to ridiculous extremes.



I want to ask you this, since this surely gets to the heart of the matter .. how is it that ASSANGE has ANY right to take it upon HIMSELF to disseminate confidential and sensitive material, and to unilaterally decide what people should and should not know ?? Does Assange hold any form of authority to act ? Did he obtain sanction to do any of this ? Did anyone vote for him to act with that authority ? OR, is he a SELF-APPOINTED MUCKRAKER WHOSE ONLY THOUGHT IS TO CREATE HARM ??

Logroller, I'm not interested in inferring links between the lack of justice in what Assange had done, and a judgment you yourself have seen to infer over other issues, or, to put it very simply,[I] TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

Ecuador hasn't been approached by the US asking for extradition of Assange, by the way. The one pertinent issue here is Ecuador's agreement to assist Assange in fighting extradition to Sweden, to face criminal charges ! If Ecuador has any respect for the due process of law, they should give Assange up and let the law take its course.

Finally ... I've noted the assistance and support those of the America-hating Left are pleased to offer Assange. Apart from the Guardian newspaper's assistance in dissemination, apart from John Pilger's unstinting support, apart also from the Ecuadorian President's personal support .. we now have George Galloway wading into this on Assange's side.

[Who remembers Galloway ? A Scottish ex-Labour Party member, now disenfranchised from Labour because even THEY couldn't stomach his views .. a staunch SADDAM SUPPORTER, AND STRONG CRITIC OF AMERICA. Well see ...

http://news.sky.com/story/975048/galloway-assanges-behaviour-was-not-rape


Video: Galloway: Assange's Behaviour 'Not Rape'
EmailRespect Party MP George Galloway has attacked Sweden's attempt to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over sexual assault claims.

Mr Galloway said allegations made against Mr Assange: "Don't constitute rape," ....

Read the rest of it for yourself. The Lefties are really coming out of the woodwork to defend Assange !! With friends such as Saddam-loving Galloway on your side, who needs enemies ??]

[Dilloduck]

Incredibly weak defense to point of laughable. We're talking about justice for all. What difference does it make if it was a century ago or a century into the future. No one is proclaiming Assange's innocence and no one is saying that he shouldn't stand trial. The argument is that EVERYONE should be subject to the same laws and the point is that HIGH LEVEL GOVT OFFICIALS get free passes under the guises of diplomatic immunity or executive priviledge. Sometimes they all nod and wink at each other because they all are guilty.

[jimnyc]

Incredibly weak defense to point of laughable.

Who are you referring to? And what defense?

[jimnyc]

No one is proclaiming Assange's innocence and no one is saying that he shouldn't stand trial.

I think you need to read this thread a little more thoroughly, and those from the not so distant past. Advocating him avoiding Sweden altogether and ignoring the legal system is more or less saying he shouldn't stand trial. Advocating that he not go to Sweden, as he may be extradited to the US, is more or less saying he doesn't need to stand trial here if charges are brought. Advocating any of his actions that might be helping avoid the justice system, is more or less saying he shouldn't avoid trial. And some have outright said (not in this thread) that they see no crime in anything at all that Assange did and shouldn't have to have charges at all, and shouldn't have to answer to the US at all if charges are brought forth. Some have said that the charges in Sweden are bogus (amongst other names) and that he is right not to go there. If no one is saying these things, then everyone should be in agreement that he should stand trial, in which case he may as well leave the embassy and go to Sweden, no?

[Dilloduck]

Who are you referring to? And what defense?

The post immediately preceding my post.

[Dilloduck]

I think you need to read this thread a little more thoroughly, and those from the not so distant past. Advocating him avoiding Sweden altogether and ignoring the legal system is more or less saying he shouldn't stand trial. Advocating that he not go to Sweden, as he may be extradited to the US, is more or less saying he doesn't need to stand trial here if charges are brought. Advocating any of his actions that might be helping avoid the justice system, is more or less saying he shouldn't avoid trial. And some have outright said (not in this thread) that they see no crime in anything at all that Assange did and shouldn't have to have charges at all, and shouldn't have to answer to the US at all if charges are brought forth. Some have said that the charges in Sweden are bogus (amongst other names) and that he is right not to go there. If no one is saying these things, then everyone should be in agreement that he should stand trial, in which case he may as well leave the embassy and go to Sweden, no?

I'm looking at thing as if I were now in his shoes and did not want to be jailed or assasinated. I simply wouldn't turn myself in. I'd have to hear the whole trial before I could determine if I thought he was guilty or innocent. For now the rest is speculation and opinions pertaining to people who commit a crime to expose what may be even larger and more heinous crimes.
Someone should be hanging for the Gulf of Tonkin lie. Maybe even several. Someone may have even tried to expose the lie at the time but didn't live to tell about it.
Have Americans killed Americans to hide secrets and crimes? My Magic 8 ball says yes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The post immediately preceding my post.

If you call that weak then you must be used to Daniel Webster, Calhoun or Lincoln speaking. ;)
I saw absolutely nothing weak about it myself.
Feel free to point out what was weak if you care to..
Consult your magic 8-ball and get back to me , ok?--;)--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

If you call that weak then you must be used to Daniel Webster, Calhoun or Lincoln speaking. ;)
I saw absolutely nothing weak about it myself.
Feel free to point out what was weak if you care to..
Consult your magic 8-ball and get back to me , ok?--;)--Tyr

My magic 8 ball says everyone has an asshole and an opinion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My magic 8 ball says everyone has an asshole and an opinion.

Everybody has a brain too. Some are just better equipped than others. Sure you disagree with Drummond but that does not necessarily indicate that his points made were weak nor his method of delivery. I've seen his posts many of them at two other forums. Never have I seen a weak one! He surely appears not to talk out of his azz as many do(not accusing anybody here of that )! Even an 'OLE COUNTRYBOY' like me can understand his lingo and nice delivery ..-;)-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Everybody has a brain too. Some are just better equipped than others. Sure you disagree with Drummond but that does not necessarily indicate that his points made were weak nor his method of delivery. I've seen his posts many of them at two other forums. Never have I seen a weak one! He surely appears not to talk out of his azz as many do(not accusing anybody here of that )! Even an 'OLE COUNTRYBOY' like me can understand his lingo and nice delivery ..-;)-Tyr

Mighty nice of you to defend him like that, Pard but I was commenting on what he posted, not him as a person. Gotta remember to keep virtual and real in perspective.

[Drummond]

Incredibly weak defense to point of laughable.

You think so, Dilloduck ? OK, if what I've posted is so feeble, you should have no difficulty in replying to it with a point-by-point refutation of it, eh ?

By all means, make the attempt - go for it ...

... and as to my reply to the following:-


...We're talking about justice for all. What difference does it make if it was a century ago or a century into the future. No one is proclaiming Assange's innocence and no one is saying that he shouldn't stand trial. No one is proclaiming Assange's innocence and no one is saying that he shouldn't stand trial. The argument is that EVERYONE should be subject to the same laws and the point is that HIGH LEVEL GOVT OFFICIALS get free passes under the guises of diplomatic immunity or executive priviledge. Sometimes they all nod and wink at each other because they all are guilty.

OK, let me start with ...


We're talking about justice for all. What difference does it make if it was a century ago or a century into the future.

How about relevance to the present day ? How about practicability ? How about NOT foisting blame-game arguments on a country for things done DECADES ago ?

Because if such blame-game arguments are deemed 'just', and there is NO limit to how far back you go to try and make them stick, well ... everyone could start blaming everyone else for every 'transgression' known about throughout history. Which, practically speaking, would be a total and absurd outrage, not to mention diplomatically chaotic in the extreme.

For example .. should the world treat Germany, today, as though Hitler was still in charge of it ?? I mean, why not, since Germany DID once invade Poland, DID go on to occupy most of Europe, and DID commit the Holocaust against the Jewish race. So, shall we start some diplomatic initiatives to start blaming them for all that, all over again ??

And, when you refer to 'justice', do you maintain that a country, or power, is answerable to everyone else, all the time ? On what basis, anyway ? YOUR idea of 'justice' could be at variance with someone else's in a foreign land, thousands of miles away. By what right do you impose YOUR brand of justice upon everybody else, and insist that they bend to your judgments ?

Think about this: 'justice' finds its expression in laws passed in society. Is it a 'just' act to steal, or are there laws to say this is a criminal act ? Is murder against the law, because to commit it is an 'unjust' act ?

Well, each country has its laws about such 'unjust' acts. If a murder is committed in America, then the perpetrator goes to live in a foreign land, would the American authorities say that the murderer should be caught and dealt with in the foreign country, according to its laws, OR, would extradition be sought for the accused to stand trial in America, so that the legal penalties can be judged applicable (or not) according to that country's judgment ?


No one is proclaiming Assange's innocence and no one is saying that he shouldn't stand trial.

... in which case, you should be happy to see Assange leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and be extradited to Sweden. Or, considering what he's done against your country, for him to be extradited to America to be answerable for his not inconsiderable efforts to do your country harm.


The argument is that EVERYONE should be subject to the same laws

.. the world over ??

If you're referring to America, and conduct within America (I take it you are ..) .. isn't that an internal matter for your own country to sort out, and in accordance with its OWN laws ??

Since when was Assange an American citizen ? Since when did he commit his 'WikiLeaks' activities on American soil ? Because, Dilloduck, the truth is that all that's been done against American interests has been undertaken by A FOREIGN NATIONAL, and, when all's said and done, ON A SELF-SERVING WHIM ! Now, you tell me ... by what right has a foreign national to so sit in judgment over your country's conduct, how it conducts its own business, and to then act to compromise American interests in the process ? That, Dilloduck, is interference in the business of America as a Nation State, one designed to do it international harm, which Assange had NO right to involve himself with.


and the point is that HIGH LEVEL GOVT OFFICIALS get free passes under the guises of diplomatic immunity or executive priviledge.

Be that as it may, Assange still involved himself with matters that were nothing to do with him. He was not an American national critical of his own people, he was someone from a foreign land insisting that America be forced, involuntarily, to be answerable to world opinion, and as HE thought it should be exercised, just because HE decided he wanted that to happen.

Let me make this point again. By what authority did Assange act ? Who gave him that 'authority' ? Was he democratically voted into a position of being 'the world's conscience' ??

Maybe Assange was obeying a law in acting as he did, that law being the product of 'justice' ? If so, cite me the law involved !!

No, Dilloduck. Assange was, and is, a muckraking troublemaker who doesn't care what harm he does, but DOES care about being answerable for his actions .. thinking he should be immune to any consequences for those actions.

Well, chew on this. How would you describe someone who thinks he can do what harm he likes, ride roughshod over other peoples' interests, commit whatever acts he chooses, when and how he chooses, and do so independently of any culpability from any legal process ?

There is a word which adequately describes such an individual, Dilloduck. The word is ... CRIMINAL.

.. and a conscienceless one at that ...

Wouldn't you agree ?

Assange most definitely qualifies.

[Drummond]

Just thought I'd add one point to my previous post.

Again, in answer to Dilloduck's ....


No one is proclaiming Assange's innocence and no one is saying that he shouldn't stand trial.

... actually, you're wrong. George Galloway has surely made the point that he SHOULDN'T do so ?

But then, he's a Leftie with an anti-American agenda. And he's not the only one following such an agenda who supports Assange, either ...

By the way, Galloway has also attracted quite a bit of criticism against his pro-Assange remarks. See, for example ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/galloway-attacked-by-party-leader-8063543.html

From the London Evening Standard ...


Respect MP George Galloway has been attacked by the leader of his own party over his controversial claim that a rape allegation against WikiLeaks campaigner Julian Assange amounted to no more than bad "sexual etiquette".

Salma Yaqoob described Mr Galloway's comments, made in a video podcast, as "deeply disappointing and wrong".

In a posting on her own website, she said the "political issues" surrounding Mr Assange's case should not be used to diminish the seriousness of the accusations against him.

"Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman. Rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex. George Galloway's comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong," she said.

"There are many political issues entwined in the case of Julian Assange. These issues cannot be used to diminish in any way the seriousness of any allegations against him.

"Any individual accused of a crime, sexual or otherwise, is innocent until proven guilty. By the same token, any individual who believes themselves to be a victim has a right to have their grievances heard in a fair manner and not have their allegations belittled or dismissed. This is the cornerstone of justice."

The furious row in the ranks of the small, left-wing party erupted as Mr Galloway faced an angry backlash from women's groups, who said such attitudes deterred victims from reporting sexual assaults.

Earlier, the MP strongly defended his claim that the allegations made against Mr Assange by two women in Sweden did not constitute rape, even if they were proved to be true.

In a statement, he said he did not believe the authorities in Britain would have sanctioned a prosecution against Mr Assange and the allegations had "all the hallmarks of a set-up".

[logroller]

You think so, Dilloduck ? OK, if what I've posted is so feeble, you should have no difficulty in replying to it with a point-by-point refutation of it, eh ?

By all means, make the attempt - go for it ...

... and as to my reply to the following:-



OK, let me start with ...



How about relevance to the present day ? How about practicability ? How about NOT foisting blame-game arguments on a country for things done DECADES ago ?

Because if such blame-game arguments are deemed 'just', and there is NO limit to how far back you go to try and make them stick, well ... everyone could start blaming everyone else for every 'transgression' known about throughout history. Which, practically speaking, would be a total and absurd outrage, not to mention diplomatically chaotic in the extreme.

For example .. should the world treat Germany, today, as though Hitler was still in charge of it ?? I mean, why not, since Germany DID once invade Poland, DID go on to occupy most of Europe, and DID commit the Holocaust against the Jewish race. So, shall we start some diplomatic initiatives to start blaming them for all that, all over again ??

And, when you refer to 'justice', do you maintain that a country, or power, is answerable to everyone else, all the time ? On what basis, anyway ? YOUR idea of 'justice' could be at variance with someone else's in a foreign land, thousands of miles away. By what right do you impose YOUR brand of justice upon everybody else, and insist that they bend to your judgments ?

Think about this: 'justice' finds its expression in laws passed in society. Is it a 'just' act to steal, or are there laws to say this is a criminal act ? Is murder against the law, because to commit it is an 'unjust' act ?

Well, each country has its laws about such 'unjust' acts. If a murder is committed in America, then the perpetrator goes to live in a foreign land, would the American authorities say that the murderer should be caught and dealt with in the foreign country, according to its laws, OR, would extradition be sought for the accused to stand trial in America, so that the legal penalties can be judged applicable (or not) according to that country's judgment ?



... in which case, you should be happy to see Assange leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and be extradited to Sweden. Or, considering what he's done against your country, for him to be extradited to America to be answerable for his not inconsiderable efforts to do your country harm.



.. the world over ??

If you're referring to America, and conduct within America (I take it you are ..) .. isn't that an internal matter for your own country to sort out, and in accordance with its OWN laws ??

Since when was Assange an American citizen ? Since when did he commit his 'WikiLeaks' activities on American soil ? Because, Dilloduck, the truth is that all that's been done against American interests has been undertaken by A FOREIGN NATIONAL, and, when all's said and done, ON A SELF-SERVING WHIM ! Now, you tell me ... by what right has a foreign national to so sit in judgment over your country's conduct, how it conducts its own business, and to then act to compromise American interests in the process ? That, Dilloduck, is interference in the business of America as a Nation State, one designed to do it international harm, which Assange had NO right to involve himself with.



Be that as it may, Assange still involved himself with matters that were nothing to do with him. He was not an American national critical of his own people, he was someone from a foreign land insisting that America be forced, involuntarily, to be answerable to world opinion, and as HE thought it should be exercised, just because HE decided he wanted that to happen.

Let me make this point again. By what authority did Assange act ? Who gave him that 'authority' ? Was he democratically voted into a position of being 'the world's conscience' ??

Maybe Assange was obeying a law in acting as he did, that law being the product of 'justice' ? If so, cite me the law involved !!

No, Dilloduck. Assange was, and is, a muckraking troublemaker who doesn't care what harm he does, but DOES care about being answerable for his actions .. thinking he should be immune to any consequences for those actions.

Well, chew on this. How would you describe someone who thinks he can do what harm he likes, ride roughshod over other peoples' interests, commit whatever acts he chooses, when and how he chooses, and do so independently of any culpability from any legal process ?

There is a word which adequately describes such an individual, Dilloduck. The word is ... CRIMINAL.

.. and a conscienceless one at that ...

Wouldn't you agree ?

Assange most definitely qualifies.
Heres some old rubbish you probablythink has lost its relevance too.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


Assange submitted facts supporting a repeated and ever-growing pattern of usurped power; I suppose you think the signers of this declaration should have turned themselves in to face justice as well.

[Dilloduck]

First let's get something straight. The length of a post is meaningless. I could type for hours and say nothing. It's empty rhetoric.
Make up you mind--are we going to allow what has happened in the past as a valid argument or do you still prefer to ignore it as irrellevant?
Lastly----I don't care if Jack the Ripper exposes a pickpocket or a general who commits genocide. They all should be arrested and tried.

[jimnyc]

People held certain beliefs a long time ago about slavery too. So if we have a case with a black man today, should we look to the laws of slavery days as suitable examples? Makes sense to me. It's good to not forget our history when deciding current law, I agree.

Anything to muddy the waters or simply facing the single case. Let me scrape the barrel and see if I can find an example of where the government got away with something, as somehow or some way, this should allow Assange to do the same.

How about people look at the cases against Assange head on - and get this - if you have issue with other government cases, in the past, or present, that you take issue with (as do I), take a stab at it. But mixing them up into one ball as if they're somehow related or should be tried together, simply isn't the case and some are looking for anything to avoid seeing the case directly head on. We have a rule of law, or we don't. If we do, then we follow it and answer to it. I don't care if that's Assange OR the government. But neither being brought up absolves the other in any way.

[jimnyc]

First let's get something straight. The length of a post is meaningless. I could type for hours and say nothing. It's empty rhetoric.
Make up you mind--are we going to allow what has happened in the past as a valid argument or do you still prefer to ignore it as irrellevant?
Lastly----I don't care if Jack the Ripper exposes a pickpocket or a general who commits genocide. They all should be arrested and tried.

Unless it is directly involved to the current Assange case, it IS irrelevant. Maybe to your opinions it's relevant, but in a court of law, what happened in the past ain't got jack shit to do with a legal case today - unless of course you can draw precedent from a prior legal case. And saying anything about the government getting away with crap, somehow being related to Assange, is pure crap. IF there are offenses by the government, they should be held accountable, but them having done anything illegal, in the past or today, gives no one legal standing to break the law.

[Drummond]

Heres some old rubbish you probablythink has lost its relevance too.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


Assange submitted facts supporting a repeated and ever-growing pattern of usurped power; I suppose you think the signers of this declaration should have turned themselves in to face justice as well.

Tell me this, then. When all this was drafted, was the intended effect that people from foreign lands take it upon themselves to beat America with a big stick ?

Note the criticism of Britain ... and the context specific to those words. The American colonies acted to extricate themselves from domination they considered 'foreign' and against which they were highly critical. Yet ... today, we have Assange, who's already charged with a criminal act and who's wanted for trial as a consequence, setting himself up as your judge and, indeed, 'executioner' ... and against the will or reasonable control of your own country's authorities.

Logroller, ask yourself whether America should once again be subject to the tyranny of a self-serving foreign opportunist, against its will.

If, in fact, there are issues which Americans need to undergo self-examination over, this is a matter for YOUR PEOPLE to sort out. It isn't for Assange to rob you of the self-determination implicit in so doing .. and this from someone charged with criminality, who considers he has the right to EVADE JUDGMENT, just as he sees fit !!

[gabosaurus]

My magic 8 ball says everyone has an asshole and an opinion.

You don't need a magic 8 ball to see that Tyr uses the former to create the latter. :cool:

[Dilloduck]

People held certain beliefs a long time ago about slavery too. So if we have a case with a black man today, should we look to the laws of slavery days as suitable examples? Makes sense to me. It's good to not forget our history when deciding current law, I agree.

Anything to muddy the waters or simply facing the single case. Let me scrape the barrel and see if I can find an example of where the government got away with something, as somehow or some way, this should allow Assange to do the same.

How about people look at the cases against Assange head on - and get this - if you have issue with other government cases, in the past, or present, that you take issue with (as do I), take a stab at it. But mixing them up into one ball as if they're somehow related or should be tried together, simply isn't the case and some are looking for anything to avoid seeing the case directly head on. We have a rule of law, or we don't. If we do, then we follow it and answer to it. I don't care if that's Assange OR the government. But neither being brought up absolves the other in any way.

Recent crimes were reported by wikileaks. I have just used history to prove that high profile crimes have been covered up in the past. Do we convict a peeping tom for reporting a murder ? If we do then maybe he shouldn't report it.

[Dilloduck]

Tell me this, then. When all this was drafted, was the intended effect that people from foreign lands take it upon themselves to beat America with a big stick ?

Note the criticism of Britain ... and the context specific to those words. The American colonies acted to extricate themselves from domination they considered 'foreign' and against which they were highly critical. Yet ... today, we have Assange, who's already charged with a criminal act and who's wanted for trial as a consequence, setting himself up as your judge and, indeed, 'executioner' ... and against the will or reasonable control of your own country's authorities.

Logroller, ask yourself whether America should once again be subject to the tyranny of a self-serving foreign opportunist, against its will.

If, in fact, there are issues which Americans need to undergo self-examination over, this is a matter for YOUR PEOPLE to sort out. It isn't for Assange to rob you of the self-determination implicit in so doing .. and this from someone charged with criminality, who considers he has the right to EVADE JUDGMENT, just as he sees fit !!
Assange is no more guilty of interfering with America's self determination as you are.

[gabosaurus]

Recent crimes were reported by wikileaks. I have just used history to prove that high profile crimes have been covered up in the past. Do we convict a peeping tom for reporting a murder ? If we do then maybe he shouldn't report it.

Wikileaks merely showed us where government has failed in the past. Forty years ago or so, this was the function of the news media, which reported the Watergate break-ins and the My Lai massacre. Now, I doubt the media would have that much fortitude.

[jimnyc]

You don't need a magic 8 ball to see that Tyr uses the former to create the latter. :cool:

If you're going to enter a thread, can you at least TRY and add to the topic, instead of your usual fucking trolling?

[Dilloduck]

Wikileaks merely showed us where government has failed in the past. Forty years ago or so, this was the function of the news media, which reported the Watergate break-ins and the My Lai massacre. Now, I doubt the media would have that much fortitude.


Wikileaks exposed some fairly recent stuff that journalists should been all over but the media has an agenda. Unfortunately the aganda ISN'T to inform Americans what the truth is.

[jimnyc]

Recent crimes were reported by wikileaks. I have just used history to prove that high profile crimes have been covered up in the past. Do we convict a peeping tom for reporting a murder ? If we do then maybe he shouldn't report it.

Sounds like someone should be charged as to the murder. And the other guy, without detailed knowledge, can be charged with trespassing and a few other crimes. But if you're asking, no, he doesn't get to skate because he came across another crime.

People every day don't report crimes for fear of incriminating themselves somehow. For example, people working under the table reporting their bosses. Yep, the boss might be a criminal, and if sufficient evidence of illegally employing people, will be charged with a crime. The employee then will likely be in hot water if he was involved and not paying taxes. I can give all kinds of examples like this, but as much as it sucks, people don't get free passes on crimes for reporting other crimes.

[Drummond]

Recent crimes were reported by wikileaks. I have just used history to prove that high profile crimes have been covered up in the past. Do we convict a peeping tom for reporting a murder ? If we do then maybe he shouldn't report it.

America doesn't have the right to examine issues specific to its own conduct in its own way, as it sees fit ? Assange, by total contrast, has the right to indulge in an orgy of muckraking, and take his machinations well beyond your control ?

Look .. all this is agenda-driven. Assange is doing what militant, anti-American militants want him to do, and for this, they're doing all possible to support him. George Galloway (British) is going so far as to try to assert that it's wrong for Assange to have to be culpable to Sweden's judiciary ... just as John Pilger (Australian, ex-journalist of the Communist Morning Star and now a freelance muckraker himself, any chance he gets or can invent) supports Assange because he considers America is, and should be, open to the strongest attacks anyone can contrive against it. Indeed, at the time of the 2003 Iraq War, he publicly advocated civil disobedience in protest against it.

Galloway was, purely and simply, as pro-Saddam as he was (and evidently still is) anti-American.

Now, who, here, is keen to play the Left's pernicious game ?

[Dilloduck]

America doesn't have the right to examine issues specific to its own conduct in its own way, as it sees fit ? Assange, by total contrast, has the right to indulge in an orgy of muckraking, and take his machinations well beyond your control ?

Look .. all this is agenda-driven. Assange is doing what militant, anti-American militants want him to do, and for this, they're doing all possible to support him. George Galloway (British) is going so far as to try to assert that it's wrong for Assange to have to be culpable to Sweden's judiciary ... just as John Pilger (Australian, ex-journalist of the Communist Morning Star and now a freelance muckraker himself, any chance he gets or can invent) supports Assange because he considers America is, and should be, open to the strongest attacks anyone can contrive against it. Indeed, at the time of the 2003 Iraq War, he publicly advocated civil disobedience in protest against it.

Galloway was, purely and simply, as pro-Saddam as he was (and evidently still is) anti-American.

Now, who, here, is keen to play the Left's pernicious game ?

Now you're bordering on naive. America has been and always will be free to deal with our own business as we please and we will always have foreign and domestic enemies. We spy on everyone and and engage in propganda. Everyone else does the same. Only difference is that American's have their freedom of speech protected.

[Drummond]

Just though I'd chuck this into the mix, for those unfamiliar with Pilger's work and who may not understand the true and pernicious nature of those supporting Assange ...

http://www.brookesnews.com/061704pilger.html


The Australian-born British journalist John Pilger has a natural flair for self-promotion and moral posturing. In about 40 years or so he has established a reputation among leftwing journalists and academics as a fearless enemy of injustice, Western hypocrisy and exploitation. Like I said, he’s got a flair. He’s also a liar, a political bigot and a callous humbug. A man who uses the misery of Third World victims of domestic oppression to malign the West in general and the US in particular.

Watching this ideological ghoul exploit the misery and pain of others in order to advance his own hateful agenda is a truly stomach-turning experience. War on terror: the other victims was the portentous title of one of his post 9-11 articles which was nothing but a viciously dishonest diatribe against America’s justified response to bin Ladin’s terrorist network of which the Taliban was an integral part, not that he bothered to mention that fact. Pilger immediately set the tone and direction of his article when he began with:

The irresponsibility of this conflict is breathtaking. It is not about terrorism. As Blair and Bush stoop to the level of the criminal outrage in New York, British forces are little more than mercenaries for the hidden agenda of U.S. imperial ambitions.

That’s right, folks, America’s response to the atrocities committed against New York and the Pentagon is nothing but a cover for its “imperial ambitions.” This is exactly the kind of malignant propaganda that the defunct Soviet Union would have come out with if it still existed.

The link offers much more than just this quote. But understand from this that Assange is acting according to an agenda, just as his supporters also are. And it's not about simple 'truth and justice' issues, but issues which, specifically, ATTACK AMERICA.

[Dilloduck]

Sounds like someone should be charged as to the murder. And the other guy, without detailed knowledge, can be charged with trespassing and a few other crimes. But if you're asking, no, he doesn't get to skate because he came across another crime.

People every day don't report crimes for fear of incriminating themselves somehow. For example, people working under the table reporting their bosses. Yep, the boss might be a criminal, and if sufficient evidence of illegally employing people, will be charged with a crime. The employee then will likely be in hot water if he was involved and not paying taxes. I can give all kinds of examples like this, but as much as it sucks, people don't get free passes on crimes for reporting other crimes.

Innocent people also don't report crimes because they will be bullied or worse.

[Dilloduck]

Just though I'd chuck this into the mix, for those unfamiliar with Pilger's work and who may not understand the true and pernicious nature of those supporting Assange ...

http://www.brookesnews.com/061704pilger.html



The link offers much more than just this quote. But understand from this that Assange is acting according to an agenda, just as his supporters also are. And it's not about simple 'truth and justice' issues, but issues which, specifically, ATTACK AMERICA.

We have American's with that same agenda. They STILL ARE ALLOWED FREE SPEECH. Is that concept beyond you ? We don't send people to the gallows cuz they said nasty things about the King anymore.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you're going to enter a thread, can you at least TRY and add to the topic, instead of your usual fucking trolling?

Gabby can not help it Jim. She has to try to prove that declaration of , "smarter than you are" , no matter who she speaks to or about. I found her comment deliciously funny.
Now if she will only learn that she is not anywhere near as bright as she believes she is.:laugh:-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Innocent people also don't report crimes because they will be bullied or worse.

Yes, perhaps true at times. I wouldn't disagree with that. The only point I'm making, is that if you commit a crime, you do the time. Someone else committing a crime, or the discovery of a crime while you are committing yours, doesn't somehow make your crime legal. If Assange revealed crimes, they should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But Assange should still answer to anything he is charged with regardless, and any charges shouldn't change or be absolved because of what he uncovered. Additionally, and perhaps not surprising to any of us, there's always the possibility that any uncovered crimes, for whatever reason, may not result in charges or even an investigation. That sucks, I agree. But also not a reason for someone else to be able to skate free on their crimes.

[Drummond]

Now you're bordering on naive. America has been and always will be free to deal with our own business as we please and we will always have foreign and domestic enemies. We spy on everyone and and engage in propganda. Everyone else does the same. Only difference is that American's have their freedom of speech protected.

Nope, you are the one being naive.

Assange's 'WikiLeaks' activities involved the dissemination of sensitive material on to the world stage. The purpose was to make that world react against you.

This is not a matter of your country being 'free to deal with your own business', because Assange poked his nose INTO your business, and tried to make sure that, in consequence, everyone else did, as well !!

Damage was the intent.

If Assange had only been concerned with - by his arrogant and interfering self-appointed judgment - righting a wrong, he need not have taken all of this out of America's own domestic control. No, he set out to make the world sit in judgment over you ... that judgment intended to be one which did you damage internationally.

You weren't meant to exercise control over ANY of this. Rather, you were meant to sit back and take the diplomatic pasting which he'd set you up for.

And for this, you think there's a case to give support of ANY kind to Assange ??

[Dilloduck]

Nope, you are the one being naive.

Assange's 'WikiLeaks' activities involved the dissemination of sensitive material on to the world stage. The purpose was to make that world react against you.

This is not a matter of your country being 'free to deal with your own business', because Assange poked his nose INTO your business, and tried to make sure that, in consequence, everyone else did, as well !!

Damage was the intent.

If Assange had only been concerned with - by his arrogant and interfering self-appointed judgment - righting a wrong, he need not have taken all of this out of America's own domestic control. No, he set out to make the world sit in judgment over you ... that judgment intended to be one which did you damage internationally.

You weren't meant to exercise control over ANY of this. Rather, you were meant to sit back and take the diplomatic pasting which he'd set you up for.

And for this, you think there's a case to give support of ANY kind to Assange ??

The world has been yelling "yankee dog die" ever since I can remember. I ignore them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just though I'd chuck this into the mix, for those unfamiliar with Pilger's work and who may not understand the true and pernicious nature of those supporting Assange ...

http://www.brookesnews.com/061704pilger.html



The link offers much more than just this quote. But understand from this that Assange is acting according to an agenda, just as his supporters also are. And it's not about simple 'truth and justice' issues, but issues which, specifically, ATTACK AMERICA.

What I see is his defenders pretending that Assange acted out of pure motives and an honorable agenda! Quite the imagination that is. That begs the question which ones foolishly believe and which dishonestly present it and snicker to themselves while doing so. Believing that such garbage defeats the truth of the matter. Sincere or not I find it silly as hell for Assange to be presented as a hero rather than the criminal which he surely is.. Or would these same people defend the same way if he had uncovered and published a lot of dirt on obama and his administration?-Tyr

[Drummond]

We have American's with that same agenda. They STILL ARE ALLOWED FREE SPEECH. Is that concept beyond you ? We don't send people to the gallows cuz they said nasty things about the King anymore.

Free speech is fine. But with such freedom comes responsibility.

Should Americans, for the sake of 'free speech', consider themselves free to disseminate anything they choose ? How about State secrets which compromise your security ?

Ever heard of TREASON, Dilloduck ?

So you see, for the sake of doing what's right for your people, there has to be a degree of control over what's disseminated. It IS easily possible to go too far. Assange, though, doesn't care about limits .. instead, if material comes his way which is likely to turn people against you, he has no qualms about publicising it.

And if the longer-term consequences are that you earn new enmities or outright enemies, well, I see no sign that Assange has any concern about that. But then ... he wouldn't. Would he ?

Who can predict what that may one day lead to ? Courtesy, that is, of Leftie America-haters who peddle their poisonous agenda on the back of 'the right to free speech' ...

[Drummond]

What I see is his defenders pretending that Assange acted out of pure motives and an honorable agenda! Quite the imagination that is. That begs the question which ones foolishly believe and which dishonestly present it and snicker to themselves while doing so. Believing that such garbage defeats the truth of the matter. Sincere or not I find it silly as hell for Assange to be presented as a hero rather than the criminal which he surely is.. Or would these same people defend the same way if he had uncovered and published a lot of dirt on obama and his administration?-Tyr

Well, curiously .. I believe Pilger is no fan of Obama. But then, Pilger has been so consistently anti-American in his ravings that he'd attack whatever Administration was in power, just because it was American.

From what I've seen of his work, I think that overall, Pilger has the one aim of seeing America's place in the world be diminished as much as is possible .. consistent amongst his writings / ramblings has been the line that America is imperialist in its intent and that any acts it takes in the world deserve opposition.

Assange's activities dovetail well with that ambition. Little wonder that Pilger supports him. I've seen a video that has Pilger making a case to say that Assange is doing the same job that other journalists should have already done themselves .. in other words, journalists are meant to think of America as 'rich pickings' for whatever muckraking they can manage .. rather like vultures circling, I'd say ...

No doubt Pilger would be delighted if the world's press all did what Assange does, all in the name of 'journalistic freedom' ..

I'm not in the business of pushing Pilger's disgusting bilge, so I'm not going to quote from this, or overly examine it .. but see for yourself what sort of diet of anti-Americanism Pilger, one of Assange's most vocal supporters, has wanted to push on to the world's stage ... and note within the article that he didn't hesitate to be critical of Clinton's people.

Going back to 2004, and entitled, 'Americanism Threatens War On The World' ...

http://johnpilger.com/articles/americanism-threatens-war-on-the-world

[Drummond]

The world has been yelling "yankee dog die" ever since I can remember. I ignore them.

Well, good for you.

But not everyone does this. Some listen. Some recruit others of like mind, or who can be persuaded to become of like mind.

And, ultimately, the real point behind what Assange and his buddies do IS to build up an anti-American feeling, to the greatest pitch they can manage.

You can play their game, or, you can instead support your country's interests. I strongly urge you to do the latter.

[Dilloduck]

Well, good for you.

But not everyone does this. Some listen. Some recruit others of like mind, or who can be persuaded to become of like mind.

And, ultimately, the real point behind what Assange and his buddies do IS to build up an anti-American feeling, to the greatest pitch they can manage.

You can play their game, or, you can instead support your country's interests. I strongly urge you to do the latter.

Do you think I should trust a foreigner like you to tell me what is in my country's best interest ? :laugh:

[Dilloduck]

Free speech is fine. But with such freedom comes responsibility.

Should Americans, for the sake of 'free speech', consider themselves free to disseminate anything they choose ? How about State secrets which compromise your security ?

Ever heard of TREASON, Dilloduck ?

So you see, for the sake of doing what's right for your people, there has to be a degree of control over what's disseminated. It IS easily possible to go too far. Assange, though, doesn't care about limits .. instead, if material comes his way which is likely to turn people against you, he has no qualms about publicising it.

And if the longer-term consequences are that you earn new enmities or outright enemies, well, I see no sign that Assange has any concern about that. But then ... he wouldn't. Would he ?

Who can predict what that may one day lead to ? Courtesy, that is, of Leftie America-haters who peddle their poisonous agenda on the back of 'the right to free speech' ...

LMAO--you sound like the church lady.
"Have you ever heard of SATANNNN."
Dude--again I have to tell you ---America has been hated by everyone at some point or another. It comes with the territory. The Russians, the Germans, the Japanese the Vietnamese, the Koreans etc etc etc.
I don't give a shit what they say nor am I going to yell "KILL EM ALL" everytime they whine. It's NOT WORTH IT.

[Drummond]

Do you think I should trust a foreigner like you to tell me what is in my country's best interest ? :laugh:

Well, considering your willingness to suggest pro-Assange sympathies (I've even noted the Assange addition to your signature), and the fact that Assange is himself a foreigner ... how come your trust in foreigners suddenly 'stops' with me ??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you think I should trust a foreigner like you to tell me what is in my country's best interest ? :laugh:

Do you trust obama to tell you? Drummonds has more good will and bests interests for our nation than obama does. I've seen obama actions and have read many of big D's posts. Easy to see which one can be trusted and which one is an enemy. Barack Enemy Obama.= BEO... I'd trust Drummond over many government elected American officials anyday and 99% of those officials have a D next to their names. It is wise to know one's enemies, I am a strong believer in that!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Well, considering your willingness to suggest pro-Assange sympathies (I've even noted the Assange addition to your signature), and the fact that Assange is himself a foreigner ... how come your trust in foreigners suddenly 'stops' with me ??

Make up your mind. Should foreigners be trusted or not ? Personally I don't think your nor Assange's nationality makes a bit of difference.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

LMAO--you sound like the church lady.
"Have you ever heard of SATANNNN."
Dude--again I have to tell you ---America has been hated by everyone at some point or another. It comes with the territory. The Russians, the Germans, the Japanese the Vietnamese, the Koreans etc etc etc.
I don't give a shit what they say nor am I going to yell "KILL EM ALL" everytime they whine. It's NOT WORTH IT.

Don't yell "kill 'em all" but wouldn't it also be wise not to ignore them as if that solves anything. Not wise to ignore enemies, far better to keep a careful eye on them . Denying an enemy's agenda is foolhardy most of the time IMHO. Information is key to survival..-Tyr

[Drummond]

LMAO--you sound like the church lady.
"Have you ever heard of SATANNNN."
Dude--again I have to tell you ---America has been hated by everyone at some point or another. It comes with the territory. The Russians, the Germans, the Japanese the Vietnamese, the Koreans etc etc etc.
I don't give a shit what they say nor am I going to yell "KILL EM ALL" everytime they whine. It's NOT WORTH IT.

Can you tell me why it is that, in your reckoning, only your own view matters ?

The likes of Assange is hell-bent on whipping up anti-American sentiment. He, for one, and his Leftie buddies, for others, most certainly think it worth the effort to make America as disliked across the world as possible.

So, OK, you personally 'don't give a shit', to quote you. All well and good, for you personally ... congratulations. But the world, Dilloduck, doesn't begin and end with you.

Even said by a foreigner, I'm telling you that America's standing in the world MATTERS, and efforts to undermine that deserve to be countered as strongly as possible. This means, so far as I'm concerned, that making Assange properly accountable for his hate-fest is an excellent idea.

I look forward to the days when you do manage to extradite him to America ... and he gets what's coming to him, courtesy of an American court.

[Dilloduck]

Don't yell "kill 'em all" but wouldn't it also be wise not to ignore them as if that solves anything. Not wise to ignore enemies, far better to keep a careful eye on them . Denying an enemy's agenda is foolhardy most of the time IMHO. Information is key to survival..-Tyr

Are you kidding me ? We are spending BILLIONS for defense. We've got the entire country taking it's shoes of before we get on planes etc. etc etc. Defending ourselves against "terrorists" is costing us dearly. Where are all the WMDs that we sent soldiers in for ? THEY ARE STILL THERE . Even if soldiers wanna volunteer thier lives for the US I don't see it anymore. War just kills people.

[Drummond]

Make up your mind. Should foreigners be trusted or not ? Personally I don't think your nor Assange's nationality makes a bit of difference.

It's really rather simple.

Foreign Lefties are self-styled enemies of yours ... understandably so, as America's Capitalistic success in the world serves as a daily reminder to them that their creed is morally bankrupt, useless as a blueprint for human happiness.

You have absolutely no reason to trust them. Rather, regard them as enemies, as they regard you as their enemy.

I, on the other hand, am no Leftie ! I hate all forms of Socialism with a passion. Mankind's existence on this planet will be much improved on that day, which I do believe the world will one day see, when all Leftieism is expunged from the planet entirely.

[Dilloduck]

Can you tell me why it is that, in your reckoning, only your own view matters ?

The likes of Assange is hell-bent on whipping up anti-American sentiment. He, for one, and his Leftie buddies, for others, most certainly think it worth the effort to make America as disliked across the world as possible.

So, OK, you personally 'don't give a shit', to quote you. All well and good, for you personally ... congratulations. But the world, Dilloduck, doesn't begin and end with you.

Even said by a foreigner, I'm telling you that America's standing in the world MATTERS, and efforts to undermine that deserve to be countered as strongly as possible. This means, so far as I'm concerned, that making Assange properly accountable for his hate-fest is an excellent idea.

I look forward to the days when you do manage to extradite him to America ... and he gets what's coming to him, courtesy of an American court.

Even my view is of no concern in the bigger scope of things. People more powerful than I have propaganda machines running everywhere. Each of them only have their own concerns in mind.Good luck on getting an unbiased and truthful take on anything.

[Dilloduck]

It's really rather simple.

Foreign Lefties are self-styled enemies of yours ... understandably so, as America's Capitalistic success in the world serves as a daily reminder to them that their creed is morally bankrupt, useless as a blueprint for human happiness.

You have absolutely no reason to trust them. Rather, regard them as enemies, as they regard you as their enemy.

I, on the other hand, am no Leftie ! I hate all forms of Socialism with a passion. Mankind's existence on this planet will be much improved on that day, which I do believe the world will one day see, when all Leftieism is expunged from the planet entirely.

Peddle your hatred in your own country--they are your neighbors--they are in your city. Fix them or are they too close for ya ?

[Drummond]

Do you trust obama to tell you? Drummonds has more good will and bests interests for our nation than obama does. I've seen obama actions and have read many of big D's posts. Easy to see which one can be trusted and which one is an enemy. Barack Enemy Obama.= BEO... I'd trust Drummond over many government elected American officials anyday and 99% of those officials have a D next to their names. It is wise to know one's enemies, I am a strong believer in that!-Tyr

Very appreciated, Tyr, thank you ! :D

[Dilloduck]

Very appreciated, Tyr, thank you ! :D


http://mosques.muslimsinbritain.org/show-mosque.php?id=2302


Look out !!!!!!!!!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Peddle your hatred in your own country--they are your neighbors--they are in your city. Fix them or are they too close for ya ?

What hatred? Hatred for leftists? Why would that concern you? He gives good advice and you disagree but dont try to peddle his message as hatred of America. Or his points of view as anti-American. Or his stating Assange should face a court of law for his deeds as being hatred, it isn't! He admits hatred for leftists , big freaking deal, so do I .. And I bet mine is even more intense than his..-Tyr

[Drummond]

Peddle your hatred in your own country--they are your neighbors--they are in your city. Fix them or are they too close for ya ?

I'm not peddling hatred. However, I am in opposition to Left-wing hatred.

And this isn't the first time, is it, that you've tried to call on me to fix problems which affect YOU. Now, why is that ? Why are you set upon turning your back on problems laid at your door, not by me, but by those who particularly see themselves as your natural enemy ?

Assange has attacked America, in accordance with his Left-wing agenda. In my view you've every conceivable right to extradite this character to face American justice. But ... you seem resistant to the idea.

You indicate actual support for Assange by even including something from him in your signature !

Now, why would that be ?

[Drummond]

http://mosques.muslimsinbritain.org/show-mosque.php?id=2302


Look out !!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the warning.

[Dilloduck]

Thank you for the warning.
Are you going to just sit there or are you going to take action ?

[Drummond]

Are you going to just sit there or are you going to take action ?

Are you talking to yourself ?

Considering the posts I've seen from you which advocate that others, and not you, take action ... I think my confusion is understandable ...

[Dilloduck]

I'm not peddling hatred. However, I am in opposition to Left-wing hatred.

And this isn't the first time, is it, that you've tried to call on me to fix problems which affect YOU. Now, why is that ? Why are you set upon turning your back on problems laid at your door, not by me, but by those who particularly see themselves as your natural enemy ?

Assange has attacked America, in accordance with his Left-wing agenda. In my view you've every conceivable right to extradite this character to face American justice. But ... you seem resistant to the idea.

You indicate actual support for Assange by even including something from him in your signature !

Now, why would that be ?

I support the disclosure of the truth pertaining to criminal acts. America has been burned before by the exact kind of thing Assange has disclosed. He's a pissant compared to the kind of trouble America can get into for international crimes.

[Dilloduck]

Are you talking to yourself ?

Considering the posts I've seen from you which advocate that others, and not you, take action ... I think my confusion is understandable ...

If you think you are telling me something I am not aware of, you're dreaming. Now he is the big question---Is there something specific that you think I should do as an individual to protect America ? If all you have to say is "be afraid " forget it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I support the disclosure of the truth pertaining to criminal acts. America has been burned before by the exact kind of thing Assange has disclosed. He's a pissant compared to the kind of trouble America can get into for international crimes.

^^^^^^ Really? Paying homage to the World Court are you?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

^^^^^^ Really? Paying homage to the World Court are you?-Tyr

screw them----I don't want our troops killing willy nilly. It's wrong. It's not what America is about. It's expensive, deadly and not making us safer as Syria is plainly demonstrating right now.

[Drummond]

I support the disclosure of the truth pertaining to criminal acts. America has been burned before by the exact kind of thing Assange has disclosed. He's a pissant compared to the kind of trouble America can get into for international crimes.

... ah, is this you advocating the 'blame game' of before ?

That all sorts of so-called crimes be examined, and fretted over, regardless of how old they are, or however irrelevant to today's world.

That other powers call upon long-dead situations and accusations in order to find excuses to mitigate their own actions ...

Assange is a present-day aggravation. 'Pissant' or not, he wants the opportunity to cause yet more harm, in the furtherance of his agenda. I see no reason to argue that he should have a free hand to achieve it.

[Dilloduck]

... ah, is this you advocating the 'blame game' of before ?

That all sorts of so-called crimes be examined, and fretted over, regardless of how old they are, or however irrelevant to today's world.

That other powers call upon long-dead situations and accusations in order to find excuses to mitigate their own actions ...

Assange is a present-day aggravation. 'Pissant' or not, he wants the opportunity to cause yet more harm, in the furtherance of his agenda. I see no reason to argue that he should have a free hand to achieve it.

He has disclosed videos of THIS war---get you ass out of the past and see if you can keep up.

[logroller]

Tell me this, then. When all this was drafted, was the intended effect that people from foreign lands take it upon themselves to beat America with a big stick ?

Note the criticism of Britain ... and the context specific to those words. The American colonies acted to extricate themselves from domination they considered 'foreign' and against which they were highly critical. Yet ... today, we have Assange, who's already charged with a criminal act and who's wanted for trial as a consequence, setting himself up as your judge and, indeed, 'executioner' ... and against the will or reasonable control of your own country's authorities.

Logroller, ask yourself whether America should once again be subject to the tyranny of a self-serving foreign opportunist, against its will.

If, in fact, there are issues which Americans need to undergo self-examination over, this is a matter for YOUR PEOPLE to sort out. It isn't for Assange to rob you of the self-determination implicit in so doing .. and this from someone charged with criminality, who considers he has the right to EVADE JUDGMENT, just as he sees fit !!
No. Nor was the intent to have America become the stick wielding tyrant; that's the rub, not some sneaky spooner exposing the fact. Your proposition that the declaration was only meant to describe 'foreign' power could not be further from the truth. It clearly states "any form of goverment" and assange the judge and executioner? By what authority is he vested such powers? You've already said, he hasn't! He just exposed the truth-- and that is a right everyone has.

Ok. So I need to wrap this up, as I'm going on a backpacking trip and won't be available for a while. (don't miss me too much;))
Truth is, I don't have a problem with acts (even illicit ones) taken to protect actual national security, but what i believe, and evidence exposed by assange shows, is the government isn't acting wholly in the interest of national security, but rather, special interests. I say this isn't in the interest of national security because I don't believe we are safer now than we have been-- so I see that as a failure of my government. I think I'm right to be mad and demand answers. Instead, ive a government pursuing secretive indictments of the man who uncovered the acts. I don't want foreign agents spying on me, but nor do I want my government (by proxy or otherwise) doing so either. If I gotta let some douchbags walk to show the govt (especially the administrative and judicial branches who answer to no one, really) just how it feels to have their laws ignored, than so be it. I know, two wrongs don't make a right; but I don't see anything right about this whole fiasco, only wrongs across the board. Assuming assange and manning are brought to justice for their alleged crimes - which is likely - what's a couple 'rights' gonna do, really? Other than reaffirm that the government's will shall not be obstructed by anything, even the bold and unsavory truth...I won't sleep any better, that's all I'm saying, and November elections seem to have little to no effect.
well, im off to explore God's country in the AM, so im off to bed. Cheers to you all!

[jimnyc]

He has disclosed videos of THIS war---get you ass out of the past and see if you can keep up.

And any people that are outed to have broken laws should hopefully meet justice as well. But whether he disclosed crimes from 30 years ago, or yesterday, neither absolves him of his own crimes. There is nothing in our justice system that allows for that. If it were true, we would have endless hackers and other criminals running around Washington recklessly, knowing that if they can find just one crime, everything they are doing illegally will be forgotten or overlooked.

[jimnyc]

No. Nor was the intent to have America become the stick wielding tyrant; that's the rub, not some sneaky spooner exposing the fact. Your proposition that the declaration was only meant to describe 'foreign' power could not be further from the truth. It clearly states "any form of goverment" and assange the judge and executioner? By what authority is he vested such powers? You've already said, he hasn't! He just exposed the truth-- and that is a right everyone has.

Written in that manner, yes. But if finding the exposed truth required committing crimes, then they must be held accountable for their crimes. Or are you possibly advocating that anyone committing crimes in Washington should be cleared, so long as their crime uncovers something illegal by our government?

If this is how you guys feel, which you aren't alone, that Washington is so untrustworthy, why not work to have more oversight put in place? Rather than have criminals working illegally to see what is going on behind the scenes? I know though, too many will say then that the oversight is susceptible to politics as well. And that's probably true to an extent. But I just don't see a place for criminal action being the answer to the shenanigans in Washington.

[Dilloduck]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange

[jimnyc]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange

Do these opinions give him the right to run from the judicial system? Would they in any way absolve him of any crimes? And keep in mind, it's not as if they were diligent in the stolen property they received, at least not all of it. They didn't just spend the time to find crimes and then "whistleblow" against them. They/He recklessly disseminated anything they had. Even Assange's own team have went on record as stating that they disagreed with him, that they needed additional time to vet the information and ensure that they weren't placing any lives in danger. That, and the fact that probably 95%+ of what they released was nothing illegal at all. Hard to claim whistleblowing when nothing illegal has transpired.

[jimnyc]

Let's be clear too, no way is this whole thing by Manning/Assange have anything to do with whistlblowing. That's simply a defense thought up after the fact. Had they solely released incriminating documents of illegal activity, or war crimes, then perhaps they would have a defense. They would STILL have to face justice, but they would have a plausible defense. The hundreds of thousands, and perhaps more, of documents that they tossed out there in addition have NOTHING to do with any type of absurd whistleblowing claim.

[Drummond]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange

.. so, then.

You continue to indicate actual support for Assange by keeping your signature as you do. Now, you're providing us with an opinion-piece from the UK's Guardian newspaper.

As I've said, a Left wing agenda is being followed in all of this. I've mentioned Pilger and Galloway as staunch, Left wing, supporters of Assange. Enter the LEFT WING Guardian on to the scene, courtesy of you, Dilloduck, to offer us thoughts broadly consistent with a Leftie mindset.

But, you see, the Guardian is far from uninvolved in all of this itself. See ...

http://www.statesman.com/news/world/wikileaks-5-major-newspapers-collaborate-1098286.html


WikiLeaks turned over all of the classified U.S. State Department cables it obtained to Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany. The Guardian shared the material with The New York Times, and the five news organizations have worked together to plan the timing of their reports.

They also have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release and what redactions to make to those files, Kauffmann and others said.

"The cables we have released correspond to stories released by our mainstream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's website Friday.

As stories are published, WikiLeaks releases the related cables on the Web. For example, The Guardian published an article Thursday based on diplomatic cables discussing the assassination of former Russian security officer Alexander Litvinenko, and WikiLeaks quickly posted three cables on the same subject.

The arrangement ties the media outlets more closely to WikiLeaks, revealing an unusual collaboration with a group facing a U.S. criminal investigation.

Anyone still not wanting to believe, by the way, that the Guardian acts in accordance with an arrogant, meddling Left-wing agenda, might also want to be reminded of this ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1474828/Guardian-calls-it-quits-in-Clark-County-fiasco.html


The Guardian yesterday ran up the white flag and called a halt to "Operation Clark County", the newspaper's ambitious scheme to recruit thousands of readers to persuade American voters in a swing state to kick out President George W Bush in next month's election.

The cancellation of the project came 24 hours after the first of some 14,000 letters from Guardian readers began arriving in Clark County. The missives led to widespread complaints about foreign interference in a US election.

It also prompted a surge of indignant local voters calling the county's Republican party offering to volunteer for Mr Bush.

The paper said it had closed the website where readers collected an address to write to and had abandoned plans to take four "winners" to visit voters in Clark County. Instead, the group would be taken to the "more tranquil" area of Washington.

Albert Scardino, the paper's executive editor for news, simultaneously denied and conceded that an early halt had been called to the project. "It is roaringly, successfully completed. It has been an overwhelming triumph," he said.

Fact ... the Guardian is every bit as arrogant a meddler in American business as Assange has proven to be .. both helping a Left-wing cause ...

[Dilloduck]

I support the truth---I don't care if SATAN says it.

[jimnyc]

I support the truth---I don't care if SATAN says it.

That's something we both agree on, in theory. When it comes to things like this where so much is being tried in the media, I think the whole truth, or as much as possible, sometimes won't come out until there are court proceedings (if there are charges of course). I think those against, or prosecutors, would love to leak things out or make statements that imply guilt before there are even charges or before a trial. At the same time, defendants, their lawyers, or their supporters, will many times paint a picture of innocence, or an overzealous prosecution.

Either way, I don't think we can know the entire truth when things are handled via the media.

[Drummond]

I support the truth---I don't care if SATAN says it.

Even just taking this as it stands, Dilloduck, that's an appalling statement to make.

It should be conceptually impossible to suppose that Satan would do good things ! So, if Satan told the truth, there'd have to be evil intent behind it. Support of that, is support of evil.

Leaving 'Satan' aside, though, what you're also surely saying is that you don't care what consequences flowed from Assange disseminating what he liked, just so long as it was 'true'. Forget consequences. Forget harm. Forget the law, forget loyalty to responsible conduct. Forget what can be inferred from agendas being followed. Forget it all, because truth is all that matters .. YES ?

Well, if traitors release State secrets, they're telling the truth, are they not ? Is treachery all OK ?

Here's an historical example of a truth-teller. Consider the importance of CONSEQUENCES which followed from his actions ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs


... As Fuchs later testified, after Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 he concluded that the Soviets had a right to know what the United Kingdom (and later the United States) were working on in secret. Hence he began transmitting military intelligence to the USSR, though the historical record is unclear about exactly when he started. Fuchs's testimony confirms that he contacted a former friend in the Communist Party of Germany, who put him in touch with someone at the Soviet embassy in Britain.

From late 1947 to May 1949, Fuchs gave Alexander Feklisov, his case officer, the principal theoretical outline for creating a hydrogen bomb and the initial drafts for its development as the work progressed in England and America. Meeting with Feklisov six times, he provided the results of the test at Eniwetok atoll of uranium and plutonium bombs and the key data on U.S. production of uranium-235. By revealing that America was producing one hundred kilograms of uranium-235 and twenty kilograms of plutonium per month, Fuchs made it easy for Soviet scientists to calculate the number of atomic bombs the United States possessed.

Thus, because of Klaus Fuchs, leaders of the Soviet Union knew the United States was not prepared for a nuclear war at the end of the 1940s, or even in the early 1950s. The information Fuchs gave Soviet intelligence in 1948 coincided with Donald Maclean's reports from Washington, D.C. It was obvious to Josef Stalin's strategists that the United States did not have enough nuclear weapons to deal simultaneously with the Berlin blockade and the Communists' victory in China.

Thanks to the miserable traitor Fuchs, who decided for himself that the USSR were entitled to information, THE TRUTH, about America's nuclear technology progress, the arms race which followed became possible. So, when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, the reality the world experienced was that we (i.e humanity, specifically courtesy of the Superpowers' armaments at that time) came within a whisker of turning this planet into one big radioactive slagheap.

So you see, Dilloduck, 'telling the truth' can have its very dire consequences ! Fuchs no doubt felt as you say you do now ... and this became a pivotal part of the foundation for the nuclear arms race which followed.

Dilloduck .. most probably this post is a waste of my time and yours, because I doubt that you'll be prepared to learn anything from it. Nonetheless, whether you like it or not, the uncontrolled dissemination of 'truth' can be an enormously harmful act, therefore WRONG to indulge in.

Fuchs proved it. Assange has proved it. But .. you just don't care, do you ?

[Dilloduck]

Even just taking this as it stands, Dilloduck, that's an appalling statement to make.

It should be conceptually impossible to suppose that Satan would do good things ! So, if Satan told the truth, there'd have to be evil intent behind it. Support of that, is support of evil.

Leaving 'Satan' aside, though, what you're also surely saying is that you don't care what consequences flowed from Assange disseminating what he liked, just so long as it was 'true'. Forget consequences. Forget harm. Forget the law, forget loyalty to responsible conduct. Forget what can be inferred from agendas being followed. Forget it all, because truth is all that matters .. YES ?

Well, if traitors release State secrets, they're telling the truth, are they not ? Is treachery all OK ?

Here's an historical example of a truth-teller. Consider the importance of CONSEQUENCES which followed from his actions ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs



Thanks to the miserable traitor Fuchs, who decided for himself that the USSR were entitled to information, THE TRUTH, about America's nuclear technology progress, the arms race which followed became possible. So, when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, the reality the world experienced was that we (i.e humanity, specifically courtesy of the Superpowers' armaments at that time) came within a whisker of turning this planet into one big radioactive slagheap.

So you see, Dilloduck, 'telling the truth' can have its very dire consequences ! Fuchs no doubt felt as you say you do now ... and this became a pivotal part of the foundation for the nuclear arms race which followed.

Dilloduck .. most probably this post is a waste of my time and yours, because I doubt that you'll be prepared to learn anything from it. Nonetheless, whether you like it or not, the uncontrolled dissemination of 'truth' can be an enormously harmful act, therefore WRONG to indulge in.

Fuchs proved it. Assange has proved it. But .. you just don't care, do you ?

Truth is just truth. Any actions taken from knowing the truth is different animal. The truth gives people an accurate choice. That excuse has been used on citizens time and time again. Jack Nicholson's characture even used it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

[Drummond]

Truth is just truth. Any actions taken from knowing the truth is different animal. The truth gives people an accurate choice. That excuse has been used on citizens time and time again. Jack Nicholson's characture even used it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

No, Dilloduck, sorry, that won't wash. Your previous statement was ..


I support the truth---I don't care if SATAN says it.

I effectively explained before that associating Satan with truth-telling meant you were supporting the truth even if delivered with evil intent. When making your previous statement, you didn't differentiate between truth and action, because, conceptually, Satan cannot be separated from malignancy. You wedded yourself to truth, REGARDLESS OF ITS CONSEQUENCES, no matter how bad. Consequences come from actions taken in the delivery of that truth.

And even leaving THAT argument aside, you also cannot reasonably conclude that 'The truth gives people an accurate choice', as you're also now asserting. Truth can be taken out of context. Truth, though true, can be incomplete, thereby relaying an incomplete and therefore misleading picture.

Truth can be used for good. It can also be used for evil. Truth - in that sense - could, I suppose, be regarded as a neutral thing, meaning that its contextual delivery is ALL important.

So supporting the truth regardless of all of that should be a form of nonsense.

Dilloduck, what really matters, and what you're trying to evade, is that considerable damage can be done through the reckless, irresponsible dissemination of it. Assange is a case in point, of a certain Leftie-supported someone who decided to release material without proper (if any) consideration for what it could lead to.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Truth is just truth. Any actions taken from knowing the truth is different animal. The truth gives people an accurate choice. That excuse has been used on citizens time and time again. Jack Nicholson's characture even used it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

So in essence you say there should be NO- STATE SECRETS ! A marvelous ideal in a world were greed and evil do not exist!
Can you point out exactly where that world is?
Otherwise its just fancy talk to attempt to fool folks with common sense and IQ's above 120, right?-Tyr

[Drummond]

So in essence you say there should be NO- STATE SECRETS ! A marvelous ideal in a world were greed and evil do not exist!
Can you point out exactly where that world is?
Otherwise its just fancy talk to attempt to fool folks with common sense and IQ's above 120, right?-Tyr

Perfectly put, Tyr. Exactly !

... besides, evidently, the 'fancy talk' didn't work anyway ... I know my IQ, it was measured many years ago, and it's above 120 ... :lol::lol:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perfectly put, Tyr. Exactly !

... besides, evidently, the 'fancy talk' didn't work anyway ... I know my IQ, it was measured many years ago, and it's above 120 ... :lol::lol:

Mine too, well above that.. TRUTH is the truth is the truth. I was taught that as a young child . However one must know when and who to withhold truth from. Top on that list is one's enemies. Apparently some think its fine for America to be held to that high standard of always telling the truth but make no such demand upon our enemies. You know what a person that thinks like that has been called before? Communists call them "useful idiots", one of the few things I agree with communists on!-Tyr

[Drummond]

Mine too, well above that.. TRUTH is the truth is the truth. I was taught that as a young child . However one must know when and who to withhold truth from. Top on that list is one's enemies. Apparently some think its fine for America to be held to that high standard of always telling the truth but make no such demand upon our enemies. You know what a person that thinks like that has been called before? Communists call them "useful idiots", one of the few things I agree with communists on!-Tyr

Exactly. It's sheer tactical commonsense to withhold whatever truth can be useful to one's enemies. Free, uncontrolled dissemination of it has potential for fatal compromise.

Shifting the context .. I learned recently that Muslims think of Left-wingers as 'useful idiots'. You can see why. In my own society, Lefties - when in power - used that power to institute a political and social climate which insisted that to object to uncontrolled immigration and a so-called multicultural 'ideal' meant that those doing the objecting must be tarred with the 'racist' tag and be seen as antisocial thinkers, to be totally rejected. Even Tony Blair had to step into the debate that raged on that one, to declare that criticism of immigration was NOT of itself racist !!

So, courtesy of Leftie societal tinkerers, the numbers of immigrants coming to our shores in recent years has skyrocketed. Whole Muslim communities have taken root and made the areas they've settled in their own. Now, you can say - truthfully and 'reasonably' - that racial intolerance is of itself wrong. Ditto intolerance, for its own sake, of cultures and belief-systems differing from your own. BUT, inject proper CONTEXT into all this, and this truth is added to by other realities, namely, the swamping of an indigenous culture by a foreign one, the attempt of the differing belief system to ride roughshod over the formerly dominant belief-system in order to conquer it, all this resulting in strife, anarchy, ultimately death and destruction !

Lefties might tell you that in a perfect world, perfect harmony between cultures is a human ideal. And this can be said, as a theory, to be something 'true'. Trouble is, though, that once certain actions are committed .. like, protests, bomb-throwing and the like, the 'truth' of ideal harmony goes up in smoke, and a new truth emerges to override it .. division, suffering, anarchy, outright EVIL.

Truth and actions are ultimately indivisible when you get down to it .. one can define the worth of the other. It can make the difference between peace and war, thriving or dying. The Left-wing 'truth' of the multicultural ideal has been one exploited by a Muslim enemy in order not to promote harmony, but dominion.

So, yes, Muslims have good reason to think of Lefties as 'useful idiots', by using the Leftie 'truth' of ideal human existence against them. It's a case of a theological enemy outmanoeuvring its opposition, and winning through a combination of arrogance, stealth, and sheer opportunism.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Exactly. It's sheer tactical commonsense to withhold whatever truth can be useful to one's enemies. Free, uncontrolled dissemination of it has potential for fatal compromise.

Shifting the context .. I learned recently that Muslims think of Left-wingers as 'useful idiots'. You can see why. In my own society, Lefties - when in power - used that power to institute a political and social climate which insisted that to object to uncontrolled immigration and a so-called multicultural 'ideal' meant that those doing the objecting must be tarred with the 'racist' tag and be seen as antisocial thinkers, to be totally rejected. Even Tony Blair had to step into the debate that raged on that one, to declare that criticism of immigration was NOT of itself racist !!

So, courtesy of Leftie societal tinkerers, the numbers of immigrants coming to our shores in recent years has skyrocketed. Whole Muslim communities have taken root and made the areas they've settled in their own. Now, you can say - truthfully and 'reasonably' - that racial intolerance is of itself wrong. Ditto intolerance, for its own sake, of cultures and belief-systems differing from your own. BUT, inject proper CONTEXT into all this, and this truth is added to by other realities, namely, the swamping of an indigenous culture by a foreign one, the attempt of the differing belief system to ride roughshod over the formerly dominant belief-system in order to conquer it, all this resulting in strife, anarchy, ultimately death and destruction !

Lefties might tell you that in a perfect world, perfect harmony between cultures is a human ideal. And this can be said, as a theory, to be something 'true'. Trouble is, though, that once certain actions are committed .. like, protests, bomb-throwing and the like, the 'truth' of ideal harmony goes up in smoke, and a new truth emerges to override it .. division, suffering, anarchy, outright EVIL.

Truth and actions are ultimately indivisible when you get down to it .. one can define the worth of the other. It can make the difference between peace and war, thriving or dying. The Left-wing 'truth' of the multicultural ideal has been one exploited by a Muslim enemy in order not to promote harmony, but dominion.

So, yes, Muslims have good reason to think of Lefties as 'useful idiots', by using the Leftie 'truth' of ideal human existence against them. It's a case of a theological enemy outmanoeuvring its opposition, and winning through a combination of arrogance, stealth, and sheer opportunism.

Liberals and lefties always ignore man's nature ! Man's nature is of greed,power and me,me,me(inherently evil)...Muslims know that all too well and use leftist ideology against us and the deluded lefties too. They play along to advance leftist agenda while getting protection and special status to grow unmolested knowing full well they will be united enough to destroy the leftists along with the rest when time comes! Leftists are too stupid to know this or else they foolishly think they can control Islam! Think they can control people more committed , more radical and more evil than they are! Just another example of the arrogance of the lib/left and their conempt in thinking they are the brightest kids on the block always. I agree with your explaination of how it has gone down in Britain. They seek to do the same here but we havent given up our guns(not yet!) and we know our government has went a long way down the path of selling us out! We still have time to correct the treason and the sell out apppeasement. We just need to be stirred a bit more. Don't worry with their arrogance they will overstep and stir too much and then watch out , the big dog will bite and bite like they never thought possible. Thats why they want to take our guns away so damn badly. Nobody getting my guns.. unless they kill me first. no brag, just a fact..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

3867



Assange will get his due soon enuff, you can bet he's already been contracted out so it's just a matter of time b4 that maggot pays for his treachery.

Noir is your typical example of a spoiled, America hating, ungreatfull, left-wing "World Citizen" types who will ALWAYS find fault with America, the only exceptions being that which a fellow leftist (like Obonzo) deems to be appropriate, then it's perfectly ok (see use of drones for assasinations, as an example, GITMO still in biz), lots of things that people of his ilk seem to ignore, excuse, or otherwise sanction, because it's "their" guy doing it.

Did I mention that Liberals are hypocrites of the 1st Order as well?

Freaking bravo!--:beer:, have another -:beer: :clap:--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

So in essence you say there should be NO- STATE SECRETS ! A marvelous ideal in a world were greed and evil do not exist!
Can you point out exactly where that world is?
Otherwise its just fancy talk to attempt to fool folks with common sense and IQ's above 120, right?-Tyr

State secrets that harm it's own citizens isn't such a great idea. One of em got a whole lotta people killed in Viet Nam.

[Dilloduck]

No, Dilloduck, sorry, that won't wash. Your previous statement was ..



I effectively explained before that associating Satan with truth-telling meant you were supporting the truth even if delivered with evil intent. When making your previous statement, you didn't differentiate between truth and action, because, conceptually, Satan cannot be separated from malignancy. You wedded yourself to truth, REGARDLESS OF ITS CONSEQUENCES, no matter how bad. Consequences come from actions taken in the delivery of that truth.

And even leaving THAT argument aside, you also cannot reasonably conclude that 'The truth gives people an accurate choice', as you're also now asserting. Truth can be taken out of context. Truth, though true, can be incomplete, thereby relaying an incomplete and therefore misleading picture.

Truth can be used for good. It can also be used for evil. Truth - in that sense - could, I suppose, be regarded as a neutral thing, meaning that its contextual delivery is ALL important.

So supporting the truth regardless of all of that should be a form of nonsense.

Dilloduck, what really matters, and what you're trying to evade, is that considerable damage can be done through the reckless, irresponsible dissemination of it. Assange is a case in point, of a certain Leftie-supported someone who decided to release material without proper (if any) consideration for what it could lead to.


Damage can be done in a lot of ways. The founding fathers inserted a system of checks and balances into our government because they wanted to protect citizens from it's own government. Why do you think they were so concerned ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

State secrets that harm it's own citizens isn't such a great idea. One of em got a whole lotta people killed in Viet Nam.

Do not know about that with Vietnam war. Start a thread and we can all discuss it after you prsent the info. I'll agree with you if you prove it sufficiently in that case. I have a few friends that served over there. Two of them are quite knowledgable on the subject, one is now a retired lawyer.-Tyr

[Drummond]

Liberals and lefties always ignore man's nature ! Man's nature is of greed,power and me,me,me(inherently evil)...Muslims know that all too well and use leftist ideology against us and the deluded lefties too. They play along to advance leftist agenda while getting protection and special status to grow unmolested knowing full well they will be united enough to destroy the leftists along with the rest when time comes! Leftists are too stupid to know this or else they foolishly think they can control Islam! Think they can control people more committed , more radical and more evil than they are! Just another example of the arrogance of the lib/left and their conempt in thinking they are the brightest kids on the block always. I agree with your explaination of how it has gone down in Britain. They seek to do the same here but we havent given up our guns(not yet!) and we know our government has went a long way down the path of selling us out! We still have time to correct the treason and the sell out apppeasement. We just need to be stirred a bit more. Don't worry with their arrogance they will overstep and stir too much and then watch out , the big dog will bite and bite like they never thought possible. Thats why they want to take our guns away so damn badly. Nobody getting my guns.. unless they kill me first. no brag, just a fact..-Tyr

Agreed. Going down the British path of terminally strict gun control, where nobody but the most gun-obsessed would feel like trying to jump the hurdles of legislation placed in their way in order to own one, is the opposite of what you need. It's no accident that it's the LEFT who are so pro-gun control. The Left seeks to disempower the citizen and centralise all authority. Aggressive elements can exploit that, and I believe that in future years we in the UK will see that exploitation tip us towards disaster.

The British situation is instructive, I think. Lefties - periodically, anyway - have had opportunities over several decades to secularise our society. They've not ever completely succeeded .. however, they've succeeded ENOUGH to pave the way for the successful intrusion of other faiths, most notably the aggressive Islamic version of one. Now .. the Left thought they were being smart by secularising Society, because in that system, they could strive to make all faiths be seen as 'equal', so that no one seems to predominate. Consequently .. ALL seem to be reduced to mere talking-points, reducing the authority of each, therefore all, to nothing.

Applied to the comparatively placid British mentality, such a system could, indeed, achieve that sort of effect. So, to a degree, it has. Thus .. tolerance of the growing Muslim faith has been tolerated. Muslims have moved here, made territories their own, built mosques by the hundred, and the path towards theological 'harmony' was set .. within an overseeing structure, so Lefties hoped, of all faiths effectively having minimal authority within society in its entirety.

Needless to say, Left-wing idiocy blinded them to the emerging truth.

Tolerance has led to a clear path, exploitable and exploited, by 'our' Muslims. They've demanded rights. Power. Legal inroads have been made to permit public criticism of Islam, if it sufficiently upsets the sensibilities of Muslims within earshot (.. as it's bound to do !), to take action in law against the offending criticiser,
on grounds of 'hatespeech' and therefore as a breach of public order.

So, Muslims have disproportionate freedoms granted to them. But then, the psychology of a Muslim is different from that of a formerly-identifiable 'native Brit', in that the placid, accepting psychology s/he would possess is NOT shared by Muslims. Muslims identify with beliefs which are about dominion and incompatible with compromise. So, secularism wouldn't work on them as the Left intended, because Islam is all about promoting its authority, not allowing it to be chipped away !

Thus, Leftie idiocy paves the way through failed secularism, for Islamic inroads to continue to be made. Authorities here are stifled by laws and attitudes they must abide by, and the general population, mostly unarmed, is reliant on those authorities for its daily wellbeing.

So there it is, Tyr. Are we salvageable, here in Britain ? I have grave doubts.

As for America .. you have the right to bear arms enshrined in your Constitution (we have no such equivalent here, of course). It may well, of itself, make all the difference. If your Left has its way, it'll move America in our direction. My belief ... your future lies in rejecting Left-wing ambition to the greatest extent possible, and above all, REMAINING personally empowered.

[Dilloduck]

I don't want to discuss the Viet Nam war. It will detract from my desire to have some transparency in our government. I encourage input from all sources since our media does not report on things that are not on their agenda.
Since you are unfamiliar with the dirty Viet Nam secrets I will retract that example.

[Dilloduck]

Agreed. Going down the British path of terminally strict gun control, where nobody but the most gun-obsessed would feel like trying to jump the hurdles of legislation placed in their way in order to own one, is the opposite of what you need. It's no accident that it's the LEFT who are so pro-gun control. The Left seeks to disempower the citizen and centralise all authority. Aggressive elements can exploit that, and I believe that in future years we in the UK will see that exploitation tip us towards disaster.

The British situation is instructive, I think. Lefties - periodically, anyway - have had opportunities over several decades to secularise our society. They've not ever completely succeeded .. however, they've succeeded ENOUGH to pave the way for the successful intrusion of other faiths, most notably the aggressive Islamic version of one. Now .. the Left thought they were being smart by secularising Society, because in that system, they could strive to make all faiths be seen as 'equal', so that no one seems to predominate. Consequently .. ALL seem to be reduced to mere talking-points, reducing the authority of each, therefore all, to nothing.

Applied to the comparatively placid British mentality, such a system could, indeed, achieve that sort of effect. So, to a degree, it has. Thus .. tolerance of the growing Muslim faith has been tolerated. Muslims have moved here, made territories their own, built mosques by the hundred, and the path towards theological 'harmony' was set .. within an overseeing structure, so Lefties hoped, of all faiths effectively having minimal authority within society in its entirety.

Needless to say, Left-wing idiocy blinded them to the emerging truth.

Tolerance has led to a clear path, exploitable and exploited, by 'our' Muslims. They've demanded rights. Power. Legal inroads have been made to permit public criticism of Islam, if it sufficiently upsets the sensibilities of Muslims within earshot (.. as it's bound to do !), to take action in law against the offending criticiser,
on grounds of 'hatespeech' and therefore as a breach of public order.

So, Muslims have disproportionate freedoms granted to them. But then, the psychology of a Muslim is different from that of a formerly-identifiable 'native Brit', in that the placid, accepting psychology s/he would possess is NOT shared by Muslims. Muslims identify with beliefs which are about dominion and incompatible with compromise. So, secularism wouldn't work on them as the Left intended, because Islam is all about promoting its authority, not allowing it to be chipped away !

Thus, Leftie idiocy paves the way through failed secularism, for Islamic inroads to continue to be made. Authorities here are stifled by laws and attitudes they must abide by, and the general population, mostly unarmed, is reliant on those authorities for its daily wellbeing.

So there it is, Tyr. Are we salvageable, here in Britain ? I have grave doubts.

As for America .. you have the right to bear arms enshrined in your Constitution (we have no such equivalent here, of course). It may well, of itself, make all the difference. If your Left has its way, it'll move America in our direction. My belief ... your future lies in rejecting Left-wing ambition to the greatest extent possible, and above all, REMAINING personally empowered.

It's ironic isn't it? You trying to warn the US about liberals when you country has been taken over by liberalism. Maybe you should have acted sooner.

[Drummond]

Damage can be done in a lot of ways. The founding fathers inserted a system of checks and balances into our government because they wanted to protect citizens from it's own government. Why do you think they were so concerned ?

So you accept that then truth of what you are, and what you want to remain to be, is - and always has been - dependent upon the actions your forefathers took, in drawing up your Constitution. And, that to defend your identity and worth, you must act, as empowered individuals, to keep that truth alive ?

Truth and actions ... indivisible. Exactly.

Do you get it ? Saying that truth is all - regardless of how it's used, however and whenever it's expressed - is by no means all you have to consider. Assange has launched an attack against America. Shouldn't it be defended from attack ? Shouldn't the will exist to fight it ?

[Drummond]

It's ironic isn't it? You trying to warn the US about liberals when you country has been taken over by liberalism. Maybe you should have acted sooner.

Whether true or not, Dilloduck, consider .. the example of what's happening in the UK, and what the future holds, can and should be a lesson for you, to show you what to AVOID. Learn by example how pernicious Left-wing ideology can be, and see what you must do to resist its effects.

[Dilloduck]

So you accept that then truth of what you are, and what you want to remain to be, is - and always has been - dependent upon the actions your forefathers took, in drawing up your Constitution. And, that to defend your identity and worth, you must act, as empowered individuals, to keep that truth alive ?

Truth and actions ... indivisible. Exactly.

Do you get it ? Saying that truth is all - regardless of how it's used, however and whenever it's expressed - is by no means all you have to consider. Assange has launched an attack against America. Shouldn't it be defended from attack ? Shouldn't the will exist to fight it ?

I asked you several posts ago to recommend specific acts. Where are they ?

[Dilloduck]

Whether true or not, Dilloduck, consider .. the example of what's happening in the UK, and what the future holds, can and should be a lesson for you, to show you what to AVOID. Learn by example how pernicious Left-wing ideology can be, and see what you must do to resist its effects.

I learned all this before you knew what a liberal was. If you don't know your audience you need to be real careful not to insult them or look foolish. Of course it's true-Great Britain is being swamped by liberal ideas and Islam.

[Drummond]

I don't want to discuss the Viet Nam war. It will detract from my desire to have some transparency in our government. I encourage input from all sources since our media does not report on things that are not on their agenda.
Since you are unfamiliar with the dirty Viet Nam secrets I will retract that example.

A totally transparent Government is one which publicises all its secrets, for friends and enemies alike to learn. This best serves your wellbeing and security interests ... well, HOW, exactly ?

Tell me of the efforts needing to be made to also ensure equal transparency from all of your adversaries, potential and actual. And of why you believe such transparency will be seen to happen, to anything like the level you evidently hope will be true for your own country !

[Drummond]

I learned all this before you knew what a liberal was. If you don't know your audience you need to be real careful not to insult them or look foolish. Of course it's true-Great Britain is being swamped by liberal ideas and Islam.

Curious .. despite your claim, you still believe that Assange and his Left-wing agenda should win through !!

I think you should make up your mind about what it is you really believe. Assange is doing what the Left wants .. now, why do you think that his ambitions, and theirs, dovetail ?

Because - obviously - the agenda being followed is DESTRUCTIVE !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Agreed. Going down the British path of terminally strict gun control, where nobody but the most gun-obsessed would feel like trying to jump the hurdles of legislation placed in their way in order to own one, is the opposite of what you need. It's no accident that it's the LEFT who are so pro-gun control. The Left seeks to disempower the citizen and centralise all authority. Aggressive elements can exploit that, and I believe that in future years we in the UK will see that exploitation tip us towards disaster.

The British situation is instructive, I think. Lefties - periodically, anyway - have had opportunities over several decades to secularise our society. They've not ever completely succeeded .. however, they've succeeded ENOUGH to pave the way for the successful intrusion of other faiths, most notably the aggressive Islamic version of one. Now .. the Left thought they were being smart by secularising Society, because in that system, they could strive to make all faiths be seen as 'equal', so that no one seems to predominate. Consequently .. ALL seem to be reduced to mere talking-points, reducing the authority of each, therefore all, to nothing.

Applied to the comparatively placid British mentality, such a system could, indeed, achieve that sort of effect. So, to a degree, it has. Thus .. tolerance of the growing Muslim faith has been tolerated. Muslims have moved here, made territories their own, built mosques by the hundred, and the path towards theological 'harmony' was set .. within an overseeing structure, so Lefties hoped, of all faiths effectively having minimal authority within society in its entirety.

Needless to say, Left-wing idiocy blinded them to the emerging truth.

Tolerance has led to a clear path, exploitable and exploited, by 'our' Muslims. They've demanded rights. Power. Legal inroads have been made to permit public criticism of Islam, if it sufficiently upsets the sensibilities of Muslims within earshot (.. as it's bound to do !), to take action in law against the offending criticiser,
on grounds of 'hatespeech' and therefore as a breach of public order.

So, Muslims have disproportionate freedoms granted to them. But then, the psychology of a Muslim is different from that of a formerly-identifiable 'native Brit', in that the placid, accepting psychology s/he would possess is NOT shared by Muslims. Muslims identify with beliefs which are about dominion and incompatible with compromise. So, secularism wouldn't work on them as the Left intended, because Islam is all about promoting its authority, not allowing it to be chipped away !

Thus, Leftie idiocy paves the way through failed secularism, for Islamic inroads to continue to be made. Authorities here are stifled by laws and attitudes they must abide by, and the general population, mostly unarmed, is reliant on those authorities for its daily wellbeing.

So there it is, Tyr. Are we salvageable, here in Britain ? I have grave doubts.

As for America .. you have the right to bear arms enshrined in your Constitution (we have no such equivalent here, of course). It may well, of itself, make all the difference. If your Left has its way, it'll move America in our direction. My belief ... your future lies in rejecting Left-wing ambition to the greatest extent possible, and above all, REMAINING personally empowered.

We do have the example of what has happened to Britain, the muslim scourge there and its disasterious effects to warn us of what is being started here. We have advantage of our Constitutional amendments and our individual ideals of freedom as citizens of a democraticly based Representative Republic.
Is Britian lost, with no chance to save it? I say yes if it doesnt do an abrupt turn immediately, I mean immediately and the reversal would have to be what many would declare brutal! Anything less and its doomed, sad to say but I absolutely believe that.. To put it another way, its chances are slim and none. Each day heads further into the none category IMHO. I fear strongly for the survival of this nation and the future of my kids and grandkids. So much so that I have made decisions to sacrifice greatly should ever there happen a push come to shove event.. Either we are men or we are sheep. I don't like mutton myself..and I dont baa, baa..;) I do shoot like Hawkeye, gun or bow! I can live in the woods and survive easily. I grew up hunting wild game starting at 6 years old. I have fighting blood, Injun blood and often a damn bad attitude. To put it bluntly muslims dont want tp piss me off too much. A fact because I can let my inner Injun go and they WILL MEET SOMEBODY MEANER THAN THEY ARE! Survival has a way of letting out inner demons in order to survive.. No brag just a fact..-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Curious .. despite your claim, you still believe that Assange and his Left-wing agenda should win through !!

I think you should make up your mind about what it is you really believe. Assange is doing what the Left wants .. now, why do you think that his ambitions, and theirs, dovetail ?

Because - obviously - the agenda being followed is DESTRUCTIVE !

Here's what I think YOU should do. You should assume that there is much more going on that you are unaware of.
oh ya--forces can be used against themselves. Even destructive ones.

[Drummond]

We do have the example of what has happened to Britain, the muslim scourge there and its disasterious effects to warn us of what is being started here. We have advantage of our Constitutional amendments and our individual ideals of freedom as citizens of a democraticly based Representative Republic.
Is Britian lost, with no chance to save it? I say yes if it doesnt do an abrupt turn immediately, I mean immediately and the reversal would have to be what many would declare brutal! Anything less and its doomed, sad to say but I absolutely believe that.. To put it another way, its chances are slim and none. Each day heads further into the none category IMHO. I fear strongly for the survival of this nation and the future of my kids and grandkids. So much so that I have made decisions to sacrifice greatly should ever there happen a push come to shove event.. Either we are men or we are sheep. I don't like mutton myself..and I dont baa, baa..;) I do shoot like Hawkeye, gun or bow! I can live in the woods and survive easily. I grew up hunting wild game starting at 6 years old. I have fighting blood, Injun blood and often a damn bad attitude. To put it bluntly muslims dont want tp piss me off too much. A fact because I can let my inner Injun go and they WILL MEET SOMEBODY MEANER THAN THEY ARE! Survival has a way of letting out inner demons in order to survive.. No brag just a fact..-Tyr

A great difficulty we have in the UK is that no immediate change can be introduced. There's no will from any major political Party to think of instituting one, not least because all that dominates our news these days is our economy and the austerity measures we have to apply .. and whether or not they're working.

If change was to come about, it would need ...

1. For the Party in power (and we have a Coalition of two of them !) to find the will to begin it.

2. For the climate of multicultural tolerance, with all this means for tolerating cultural and theological invasion, to be reversed. A great attitude-shift would have to be somehow introduced to 'de-programme' many peoples' thinking.

3. From this, for the political basis to form to institute the change .. because otherwise, those in power would be committing electoral suicide if they tried to start change without knowing they had the voting support of the public on their side

4. Change involving wholesale delousing of laws already passed which, right now, bolster the multicultural minorities

5. Following domestic law-changing, a further root-and-branch reform of all laws which do, or COULD, allow EU legislation to overrule/render 'illegal' the changes instituted.

You see, we've a two-tier problem on our hands, just in terms of reforming our legal system so that minority groups can't use it for their own benefit .. the second tier being that laws have been passed, and accordingly worded, so as to facilitate EU legislation as well (e.g EU Human Rights legislation). I think that separation from the EU itself would have to form part of the picture ... which I'm in favour of, but the point is, ALL OF THIS WOULD TAKE A LOT OF TIME.

Our Labour Party spent over a decade in power setting things up for THEIR benefit. This can't be reformed in less than years, even after the will is found to kick the process off !

And, could it be done within the lifetime of a single Parliament ? If not, would those driving the change be voted out of power before they finished the process ?

Remember - self-empowerment is not an immediate option for us. Most people don't carry or own guns, and have never used one (and legal precedent exists to be tough on those who do / have .. check out the Tony Martin case online, one of a farmer who fought burglars with a shotgun).

Americans are much better placed to deal with incursions than we are. Though .. if your Left has its way, that will be eroded over time.

[Dilloduck]

We do have the example of what has happened to Britain, the muslim scourge there and its disasterious effects to warn us of what is being started here. We have advantage of our Constitutional amendments and our individual ideals of freedom as citizens of a democraticly based Representative Republic.
Is Britian lost, with no chance to save it? I say yes if it doesnt do an abrupt turn immediately, I mean immediately and the reversal would have to be what many would declare brutal! Anything less and its doomed, sad to say but I absolutely believe that.. To put it another way, its chances are slim and none. Each day heads further into the none category IMHO. I fear strongly for the survival of this nation and the future of my kids and grandkids. So much so that I have made decisions to sacrifice greatly should ever there happen a push come to shove event.. Either we are men or we are sheep. I don't like mutton myself..and I dont baa, baa..;) I do shoot like Hawkeye, gun or bow! I can live in the woods and survive easily. I grew up hunting wild game starting at 6 years old. I have fighting blood, Injun blood and often a damn bad attitude. To put it bluntly muslims dont want tp piss me off too much. A fact because I can let my inner Injun go and they WILL MEET SOMEBODY MEANER THAN THEY ARE! Survival has a way of letting out inner demons in order to survive.. No brag just a fact..-Tyr

Go get em, Hawkeye.

[Drummond]

Here's what I think YOU should do. You should assume that there is much more going on that you are unaware of.
oh ya--forces can be used against themselves. Even destructive ones.

You'd set Assange against his Leftie buddies ? How ?? Pilger, Galloway, the Leftie Guardian, any Leftie political pressure group worth a damn, they're all behind Assange's wrecking agenda.

And Dilloduck, it would help make your case more credible if you were to stop feeding his cause yourself ! Try standing up to Assange's whistleblowing strategy instead of praising it ! Try seeing when you're under attack, and recognising that attack for the attack on your country that it is !

[Dilloduck]

You'd set Assange against his Leftie buddies ? How ?? Pilger, Galloway, the Leftie Guardian, any Leftie political pressure group worth a damn, they're all behind Assange's wrecking agenda.

And Dilloduck, it would help make your case more credible if you were to stop feeding his cause yourself ! Try standing up to Assange's whistleblowing strategy instead of praising it ! Try seeing when you're under attack, and recognising that attack for the attack on your country that it is !

I could care less if you think my case is credible. You're living in a bigger shit hole of socialism than I am and still pretend to have credibility.
HELLO !

[Drummond]

I asked you several posts ago to recommend specific acts. Where are they ?

Explain .. and quote me the post of yours you have in mind.

[Drummond]

I could care less if you think my case is credible. You're living in a bigger shit hole of socialism than I am and still pretend to have credibility.
HELLO !

Yes, I have credibility. You see, I know whereof I speak .. I'm rather well qualified to recognise dangers that you gloss over.

[Drummond]

Following post #207, I've found what I had in mind while I was posting it.

Here's a link to the Tony Martin case .. a 'timeline' account of what he suffered. His was an example of a farmer who used a shotgun to defend his farm from burglars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1604238.stm

[Dilloduck]

Yes, I have credibility. You see, I know whereof I speak .. I'm rather well qualified to recognise dangers that you gloss over.

Too late for yourself and we've known about the dangers of socialism for years. Do have anything helpful ?
I bet you wish you had a gun or two.

[Drummond]

Too late for yourself and we've known about the dangers of socialism for years. Do have anything helpful ?
I bet you wish you had a gun or two.

That would be, the 'gun or two' which our Leftie-inspired stringent gun laws make it extremely difficult to get ?

And ... you know what ? I really do wonder if you've anything like as much of a clue about the extent of what Socialism threatens you with that you think you do.

Tell me of your understanding of the Leftie ..

Hatespeech laws

National Health Service (rather more radical than 'ObamaCare')

Proposal to turn organ donation on its head .. citizens required to carry proof that they do NOT want the State to harvest their organs from their bodies after death. This a proposal for the NHS in Wales, under consideration

Institution of CCTV cameras wherever they can be sited. See ...

http://www.videojug.com/interview/surveillance-3#does-britain-have-too-many-cctv-cameras

... we have 20% of the world's entire stock of closed circuit TV surveillance cameras trained on us ...

The largest DNA database anywhere in the world

Internet and email surveillance by the Government (first proposed by Labour)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/uk-government-preparing-email-and-internet-surveillance-legislation-1-2209881

Believe me, Dilloduck, this is but the merest taste of where Leftieism can lead ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Go get em, Hawkeye.

Unlike the freaking sheep here I will if it comes to it. That is what seperates true patriots from azzhats, liars, appeasors, lib/leftists/dems! True patriots not only see whats coming but have decided what they will do about it when/if the hard stuff starts. Anybody opposing me in a survival situation doesnt stand a chance unless they pop me first because I dont miss and I will not get excited like a child. I have just enough dont give a damn and anger in me to be very dangerous in such a situation. No brag just fact.. Think that Im alone with that attitude, think again! True Americans think like that and most know what is being brought on us by hook and crook with implementation of the dem loved liberal/socialist agenda. Most ex-military see and have made up their minds already..They arent going to side with the ffing traitors..no matter who backs them..Best get a clue or hide in a basement should it come to that is my advice to you, let those committed to the preservation of the nation save you and the women/children....I'm just an ordinary guy , no member of any group. Going "dogsoldier" is an Indian thang...-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Unlike the freaking sheep here I will if it comes to it. That is what seperates true patriots from azzhats, liars, appeasors, lib/leftists/dems! True patriots not only see whats coming but have decided what they will do about it when/if the hard stuff starts. Anybody opposing me in a survival situation doesnt stand a chance unless they pop me first because I dont miss and I will not get excited like a child. I have just enough dont give a damn and anger in me to be very dangerous in such a situation. No brag just fact.. Think that Im alone with that attitude, think again! True Americans think like that and most know what is being brought on us by hook and crook with implementation of the dem loved liberal/socialist agenda. Most ex-military see and have made up their minds already..They arent going to side with the ffing traitors..no matter who backs them..Best get a clue or hide in a basement should it come to that is my advice to you, let those committed to the preservation of the nation save you and the women/children....I'm just an ordinary guy , no member of any group. Going "dogsoldier" is an Indian thang...-Tyr

Why are you waiting here for them ? Aren't you going to take them out before they get here? Maybe in Syria or something ?

[Dilloduck]

That would be, the 'gun or two' which our Leftie-inspired stringent gun laws make it extremely difficult to get ?

And ... you know what ? I really do wonder if you've anything like as much of a clue about the extent of what Socialism threatens you with that you think you do.

Tell me of your understanding of the Leftie ..

Hatespeech laws

National Health Service (rather more radical than 'ObamaCare')

Proposal to turn organ donation on its head .. citizens required to carry proof that they do NOT want the State to harvest their organs from their bodies after death. This a proposal for the NHS in Wales, under consideration

Institution of CCTV cameras wherever they can be sited. See ...

http://www.videojug.com/interview/surveillance-3#does-britain-have-too-many-cctv-cameras

... we have 20% of the world's entire stock of closed circuit TV surveillance cameras trained on us ...

The largest DNA database anywhere in the world

Internet and email surveillance by the Government (first proposed by Labour)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/uk-government-preparing-email-and-internet-surveillance-legislation-1-2209881

Believe me, Dilloduck, this is but the merest taste of where Leftieism can lead ...

:lol: We already know all of this and more.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why are you waiting here for them ? Aren't you going to take them out before they get here? Maybe in Syria or something ?

Kinda slow arent ya? They are already here.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Look at the blocked streets in NYC when its prayer rug time .
Our nation's worst enemy resides here already.. I guess you dint get enuff booklearnin' thar jethro..;)-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Kinda slow arent ya? They are already here.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Look at the blocked streets in NYC when its prayer rug time .
Our nation's worst enemy resides here already.. I guess you dint get enuff booklearnin' thar jethro..;)-Tyr

I ain't the one itchin' to kill em all. That's your dept.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I ain't the one itchin' to kill em all. That's your dept.

AHHH, not itching but not avoiding the coming problem either. Preparation and information being key to survival. It's coming , question is how soon. I am a brutally honest person that know more people should find out about the true threat before its TOO DAMN LATE! -Tyr

[Drummond]

:lol: We already know all of this and more.

Well, this is good news. In which case .. if you understand what you face by giving the Left some power, you should want to see their agenda-ploys properly stymied.

And, guess what ?

That means actually NOT supporting those agendas when the likes of Assange helps advance them !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, this is good news. In which case .. if you understand what you face by giving the Left some power, you should want to see their agenda-ploys properly stymied.

And, guess what ?

That means actually NOT supporting those agendas when the likes of Assange helps advance them !

Good luck on convincing Dilloduck on that. He seems a bit blind on the destruction caused and the silliness of anybody trying to justify the actions taken by Manning and Assange. Both are criminals, both deserve far worse than they are likely to get! Manning for sure , should be executed for his treason IMHO!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Politicians to far more damage every year but you two keep pretending to be Paul Revere.

[Drummond]

Politicians to far more damage every year but you two keep pretending to be Paul Revere.

Well, Assange doesn't qualify as a politician .. just a muckraking lowlife .. so, is it your contention that he's harmless ?

[Dilloduck]

Well, Assange doesn't qualify as a politician .. just a muckraking lowlife .. so, is it your contention that he's harmless ?

Very poor reading comprehension. Try again without adding or subtracting words.

[Drummond]

Very poor reading comprehension. Try again without adding or subtracting words.

Is that with, or without, your typos (.. presumably WITH) ... ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Politicians to far more damage every year but you two keep pretending to be Paul Revere.

I dont ride horses and I own no latern. ;)
Posting the truth about a known and valid threat should not be criticised unless one would rather see the threat carried out . Otherwise what harm is in letting people know about it and make up their own mind? Our government wants people blind about the threat, do you too? If so , why?
I do not see Drummond or I pretending anything myself! Unless you doubt our obvious sincerity in our posts why would you think that?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I dont ride horses and I own no latern. ;)
Posting the truth about a known and valid threat should not be criticised unless one would rather see the threat carried out . Otherwise what harm is in letting people know about it and make up their own mind? Our government wants people blind about the threat, do you too? If so , why?
I do not see Drummond or I pretending anything myself! Unless you doubt our obvious sincerity in our posts why would you think that?-Tyr

The problem is that there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Now I realize that I will be lableled a defeatist for that comment but it's true. There is nothing you can do to stop liberalism or Islam. Is your purpose purely political ? Are you campaigning for Romney?

[Drummond]

The problem is that there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Now I realize that I will be lableled a defeatist for that comment but it's true. There is nothing you can do to stop liberalism or Islam. Is your purpose purely political ? Are you campaigning for Romney?

You're right. Based on this, I do label you as defeatist !

What's rich about this is that you had the cheek to be denigratory about the UK, just days ago, for where Leftieism and Muslim incursion has already led us. Yet here, in the post I've quoted above, you accept in principle that the same can happen to America, and you claim it can't be stopped.

Maybe the UK has reached a point of no return, but I absolutely DO NOT accept that the same is true for the US. Oh, if people like you, sticking with the attitude you've expressed, just sit back and accept everything coming your way, then in just a few years you'll have reached our point, over here. However, if you value freedom and the worth of the individual, you CAN prevail, and in so doing, provide inspiration for the world.

But tell me this, Dilloduck. If everything is all so 'inevitable', then why bother taking any position on ANYTHING AT ALL ? This I find strange. You're 'strongly pro-truth', you say. Well .. why bother, if everything that you 'fear' may happen, has an inevitability about it ?

More accurately, I think you feign defeatism when it suits you to promote a particular attitude for a particular effect.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem is that there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Now I realize that I will be lableled a defeatist for that comment but it's true. There is nothing you can do to stop liberalism or Islam. Is your purpose purely political ? Are you campaigning for Romney?

I sincerely hope that your defeatist attitude is a temporary state in your life. You are wrong, if the American people wake up before its too late you can bet your last penny we can stop it. What I suspect you may mean is that we can not stop it without violence and bloodshed. That may be true but that option will have to be decided when it is survival time and we as a nation understand and see its our ONLY course.. We have options, including time , that the Brits do not in regards to stopping the coming Islamist scourge. Have you any ideal what they would do to us! They would kill anybody and anything that does not totally surrender to Allah. For once we are fallen they will see the world as theirs and then look out because in their wicked demented minds the Big Satan has been conquered. I suggest that you do an indepth study of Islam ,its history of conquests. They murdered tens of millions with nary a moment's hesitation. They will happily do so again if they are not stopped! Obama favors both Islam and leftist ideology. Which he favors the most will be revealed after he is no longer president. I suspect that its Islam because he was taught Islam as a child. You may be a smart guy but smart guys have been deluded and scammed many times before. Take my suggestion and do a really deep study of Islam, with a good look into what Islam and leftist politicians together(allied) have done to Britain and perhaps the new information will open your eyes.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I sincerely hope that your defeatist attitude is a temporary state in your life. You are wrong, if the American people wake up before its too late you can bet your last penny we can stop it. What I suspect you may mean is that we can not stop it without violence and bloodshed. That may be true but that option will have to be decided when it is survival time and we as a nation understand and see its our ONLY course.. We have options, including time , that the Brits do not in regards to stopping the coming Islamist scourge. Have you any ideal what they would do to us! They would kill anybody and anything that does not totally surrender to Allah. For once we are fallen they will see the world as theirs and then look out because in their wicked demented minds the Big Satan has been conquered. I suggest that you do an indepth study of Islam ,its history of conquests. They murdered tens of millions with nary a moment's hesitation. They will happily do so again if they are not stopped! Obama favors both Islam and leftist ideology. Which he favors the most will be revealed after he is no longer president. I suspect that its Islam because he was taught Islam as a child. You may be a smart guy but smart guys have been deluded and scammed many times before. Take my suggestion and do a really deep study of Islam, with a good look into what Islam and leftist politicians together(allied) have done to Britain and perhaps the new information will open your eyes.-Tyr


Gotcha--you are campaigning. When are the Muslims going to start murdering all the Brits ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Gotcha--you are campaigning. When are the Muslims going to start murdering all the Brits ?

Sure, you got me dead to right there cowboy. When have I ever stated otherwise? I always campaign for the TRUTH of a dangerous threat to be outed!! I do so about China and Iran as well. Havent tried to make any of that a secret now have I ??-Tyr

[Drummond]

Gotcha--you are campaigning. When are the Muslims going to start murdering all the Brits ?

I wish I had an answer to that to give myself ....

My guess .. if they had reason to think their continuing encroachment on our territory, our culture, what's left of our Christian heritage .. if this was to be countered, if they saw they were unlikely to be allowed to continue, then we'd see a lot of violence. Riots, certainly, no doubt including a bombing campaign.

They've already shown us a flair for such murders. We had our '7/7' attack in London, after all, the very day after we won our bid to host the Olympics. Bomb attacks on the Tube, and one on a London bus. And that was when they had no reason at all to commit such murders .. the great 'multiculturalism' experiment under Labour was already well underway.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

i wish i had an answer to that to give myself ....

My guess .. If they had reason to think their continuing encroachment on our territory, our culture, what's left of our christian heritage .. If this was to be countered, if they saw they were unlikely to be allowed to continue, then we'd see a lot of violence. Riots, certainly, no doubt including a bombing campaign.

They've already shown us a flair for such murders. We had our '7/7' attack in london, after all, the very day after we won our bid to host the olympics. Bomb attacks on the tube, and one on a london bus. And that was when they had no reason at all to commit such murders .. The great 'multiculturalism' experiment under labour was already well underway.


when they are strong enough!!!
they decide that themselves...
only sooner if they are strongly opposed!!!!

[Dilloduck]

when they are strong enough!!!
they decide that themselves...
only sooner if they are strongly opposed!!!!

Someone needs to warn the Brits.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Someone needs to warn the Brits.

I sent a letter to the Queen. She replied , " when monkeyboy is no longer in charge we need America's help".
I replied back just the other day saying, "dont worry baby, we are working on it and before Christmas you will have your answer"!
She likes it when I call her baby, always has.-;)

p.s. I notified Drummonds shortly after meeting him, does that count?-:laugh: --Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I sent a letter to the Queen. She replied , " when monkeyboy is no longer in charge we need America's help".
I replied back just the other day saying, "dont worry baby, we are working on it and before Christmas you will have your answer"!
She likes it when I call her baby, always has.-;)

p.s. I notified Drummonds shortly after meeting him, does that count?-:laugh: --Tyr

No, Drummonds is a chickenshit and wants Americans to take care of business for him. The Queen has more balls.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No, Drummonds is a chickenshit and wants Americans to take care of business for him. The Queen has more balls.

You ever so greatly misjudge my friend. I've found not a speck of cowardice in the man myself. And I am a fair judge of men if I do say so myself! I'd rather he have my back in a fight than many of the badass guys I know well from my younger wild fighting days. Its a question of trust and a judgement of integrity in regards to a man's true character.. Some people just have a gift for discerning it correctly without fail ..-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

You ever so greatly misjudge my friend. I've found not a speck of cowardice in the man myself. And I am a fair judge of men if I do say so myself! I'd rather he have my back in a fight than many of the badass guys I know well from my younger wild fighting days. Its a question of trust and a judgement of integrity in regards to a man's true character.. Some people just have a gift for discerning it correctly without fail ..-Tyr

:laugh2: Oh ya--the bad asses always ask someone else to do their fighting for them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh2: Oh ya--the bad asses always ask someone else to do their fighting for them.

^^^^^ That statement clearly reveals that you have no knowledge or experience with real badasses.
I've dealt with many in my lifetime even a few that have went on to commit murder and many more that did various other felonies including beating up cops. Again , how do you come to the conclusion that Drummond is a coward? None of his posts here suggest that possibility and I believe that I've read them all. -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

^^^^^ That statement clearly reveals that you have no knowledge or experience with real badasses.
I've dealt with many in my lifetime even a few that have went on to commit murder and many more that did various other felonies including beating up cops. Again , how do you come to the conclusion that Drummond is a coward? None of his posts here suggest that possibility and I believe that I've read them all. -Tyr

Obviously the bad asses you knew ALSO did their own dirty work.

[Drummond]

No, Drummonds is a chickenshit and wants Americans to take care of business for him. The Queen has more balls.

Very entertaining, Dilloduck. And to think you've claimed to have a loyalty to 'the truth' ...

Let me give you a tip when it comes to throwing gratuitous abuse my way, Dilloduck. It would help you if you used terms I more readily 'identified' with than Americanisms ! The word (or is 'term' closer ?) 'Chickenshit' isn't unknown over here, but it isn't often used. It's almost as American to us as 'sidewalk' is (we'd use the word 'pavement') or 'diaper' (our word is 'nappy').

Dilloduck (.. and really, with a monicker like that, can you really afford to chuck out insults, anyway ?!?) .. next time, if you want to try an get under my skin - and good luck in trying, by the way - choose your insults with greater thought.

But anyway, what really amuses me about this is that it's YOUR stances which seem appropriate to this ! Consider .. when it comes to supporting Israel, as the ally you're supposed to be, hasn't it been your argument that US forces keep well out of involvement in any battles, attacks, involving Israel v Iran ?

Likewise, when it comes to the issue of chemical WMD's that might otherwise end up in terrorist hands. It's definitely in your interest to make sure they don't, and yet, AGAIN, you shied away from my suggestion that US forces get actively involved in their custodial capture, to prevent that from happening.

Is it somehow your argument that America is NOT a prime terrorist target choice ? Why on earth wouldn't it be in your best interests to keep WMD's out of terrorist hands ? Yet, in past debates, you've suggested that UK forces, rather than American ones, deal with the problem instead !

So as I say, choose your future insults with care. Self-defeating irony doesn't exactly help you.

Here's what I think .. the quality of my past arguments with you has you worried. You don't much like that. So, you'd like to encourage me into an intemperate exchange with you instead, one that has me trying to outdo 'Chickenshit' in the profanity stakes, and see what consequences flowed from it.

Sorry to disappoint you, my son. I don't need to go to such lengths to make my points ... regardless of whether or not YOU do.:coffee:

[Drummond]

You ever so greatly misjudge my friend. I've found not a speck of cowardice in the man myself. And I am a fair judge of men if I do say so myself! I'd rather he have my back in a fight than many of the badass guys I know well from my younger wild fighting days. Its a question of trust and a judgement of integrity in regards to a man's true character.. Some people just have a gift for discerning it correctly without fail ..-Tyr

Much appreciated, Tyr. Thanks for that. :beer:

And for Dilloduck's information ... I've never run away from a fight in my life - however much he'd like to think otherwise.

[Dilloduck]

Much appreciated, Tyr. Thanks for that. :beer:

And for Dilloduck's information ... I've never run away from a fight in my life - however much he'd like to think otherwise.

Well get to whuppin up on those liberals that have taken over your country without firing a shot. Show us how it's done !

[pete311]

"Four years ago, a barely noticed Pentagon document, leaked by WikiLeaks, described how WikiLeaks and Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to “criminal prosecution.” On Aug. 18 this year, the Sydney Morning Herald disclosed, in a Freedom of Information release of official files, that the Australian government had repeatedly received confirmation that the U.S. was conducting an “unprecedented” pursuit of Assange and had raised no objections."

http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2012/08/23/the-pursuit-of-julian-assange-is-an-assault-on-freedom-and-a-mockery-of-journalism/ (http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2012/08/23/the-pursuit-of-julian-assange-is-an-assault-on-freedom-and-a-mockery-of-journalism/)

[jimnyc]

http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2012/08/23/the-pursuit-of-julian-assange-is-an-assault-on-freedom-and-a-mockery-of-journalism/ (http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2012/08/23/the-pursuit-of-julian-assange-is-an-assault-on-freedom-and-a-mockery-of-journalism/)

I suppose then if he ever gets charged, this document can be used as a good piece for his defense. I'm sure this should absolve him of crimes involving theft and conspiracy.

[Drummond]

Well get to whuppin up on those liberals that have taken over your country without firing a shot. Show us how it's done !

More entertainment from you, Dilloduck ?

'Whuppin' is another Americanism, I believe. I take it you mean something akin to defeating them ?

... oh, and thanks for the 'order', by the way. Why you should think I should be happy to be ordered around by you, I can't imagine ...

If you do mean 'defeating' them, well, OK, I can help you there.

Pay attention. Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin ...

We have a little something, here in the jolly old UK, called 'democracy' (.. well, for the time being, anyway ..). What happens, you see, is that we have things called 'elections', where the Government of the day either gets voted back into Office, or, it gets thrown out, and is replaced by those of another political Party ... or 2 ...

Back in 2010, we had one such election ... and our Labour Party (Lefties), yes, Dilloduck, they got thrown out. Not very decisively, it has to be said, since no one Party had sufficient votes to command an absolute majority in the Commons, but, nonetheless, the Labour Party WAS thrown out. They tried to unite with the Liberal Democrats (not YOUR version of 'liberal', but a centre-ground Party) .. and we had the unedifying spectacle of Gordon Brown, sitting in 10 Downing Street for around a week, pathetically hanging on to 'power' but without any mandate to actually govern (poor ol' Gordon, he SO hated to leave ...). But anyway, instead, ultimately the LibDems did a deal with the Conservatives and, from that time to this, have shared power in a Coalition Government.

So you see, we did kick out our Lefties, in 2010. I'm a bit surprised that you didn't know that ...

Now, how about you, in the US ? Still have your own Lefties hanging around, do you, ruining everything ?

OF COURSE THEY ARE .. THEY'RE LEFTIES ! IT'S IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION ...

So, now you know, Dilloduck, what you need to do, and you don't have all that long before you, and people such as you, can make the difference you need to make. Since you had a need to ask me how it's done, I hope you found this post instructive ! Why not follow our example, and boot Obama and his cronies OUT ?

You know it makes sense, Dilloduck ....

... don't you ?

[Dilloduck]

More entertainment from you, Dilloduck ?

'Whuppin' is another Americanism, I believe. I take it you mean something akin to defeating them ?

... oh, and thanks for the 'order', by the way. Why you should think I should be happy to be ordered around by you, I can't imagine ...

If you do mean 'defeating' them, well, OK, I can help you there.

Pay attention. Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin ...

We have a little something, here in the jolly old UK, called 'democracy' (.. well, for the time being, anyway ..). What happens, you see, is that we have things called 'elections', where the Government of the day either gets voted back into Office, or, it gets thrown out, and is replaced by those of another political Party ... or 2 ...

Back in 2010, we had one such election ... and our Labour Party (Lefties), yes, Dilloduck, they got thrown out. Not very decisively, it has to be said, since no one Party had sufficient votes to command an absolute majority in the Commons, but, nonetheless, the Labour Party WAS thrown out. They tried to unite with the Liberal Democrats (not YOUR version of 'liberal', but a centre-ground Party) .. and we had the unedifying spectacle of Gordon Brown, sitting in 10 Downing Street for around a week, pathetically hanging on to 'power' but without any mandate to actually govern. But anyway, instead, ultimately the LibDems did a deal with the Conservatives and, from that time to this, have shared power in a Coalition Government.

So you see, we did kick out our Lefties, in 2010. I'm a bit surprised that you didn't know that ...

Now, how about you, in the US ? Still have your own Lefties hanging around, do you, ruining everything ?

OF COURSE THEY ARE .. THEY'RE LEFTIES ! IT'S IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION ...

So, now you know, Dilloduck. I hope you found this post instructive ! Why not follow our example, and boot Obama and his cronies OUT ?

You know it makes sense, Dilloduck ....

... don't you ?

A lot of good your election did. You still have muzzies coming out your arse. ( that what you guys say right ? Arse ? )

[Drummond]

I suppose then if he ever gets charged, this document can be used as a good piece for his defense. I'm sure this should absolve him of crimes involving theft and conspiracy.

I see Bilger (I've been calling him that for years, on account of all the revolting Bilge he writes) is still trying to stoke up some pro-Assange propaganda, taking swipes at his pet hates along the way.

If it isn't obvious by now that Assange is nothing more than a manifestation of a Left-wing attack upon America, and that anyone supporting him is aiding the odious Left, it never will be ...