Dicuss Wikileak and Julian Assange
 

Recently, the series of event concerning Julian Assange and his Wiki-leak website caught world wide attention after the leak of the US diplomat cable reveal that secretary of sate Hilary Clinton order US diplomat to spy on their staying countries. This is just one the the highlight of those documents. Other significant information reveal in the media is about the comment of former PM of Australia Kevin Rudd in regard of using armed force against China if necessary.

My question is, what do you think about the actions of Julian Assange? do you think those document really benefit to the people? Is Julian simply using and protecting his rights of free speak to make the government more responsible or is he an anarchist who spread fear and ruin everything?

I think you need to edit your title...

oh and I think he's a hero, Michael Moore said it right in his pledge to him!

Is this even news at all? I mean, all governments have secret services to spy on other countries and gather information that might come in handy in further international issues. It's not like Hilary Clinton's cheating or anything, she's doing what everyone else is doing, only difference is she got caught.

Well, he could've made big money out of it. I wouldn't have made it public, I would have gone to the US administration and accept any deal in exchange for the information in my power.

I would bring a lawyer and a notary with me. :smokingbear:

I think you'd be better off with a pinky promise ...

It's nothing serious, everyone knew this was under the table anyway. Honestly, if he had any real information that was sensitive to US diplomacy you would find him slumped over the drivers seat of his car "dead of natural causes", somewhere. I mean really, if he was that great a threat, you think the CIA let's him live?

Wtf.

The CIA can't just have people killed because they are bothersome to the government. They'd have an investigation run on them and it would come to light and there would be repercusions.

You guys think the world is a much darker place than it actually is. Hollywood's definitely gotten to the lot of you ;)

Hmm.....?????......AHHHH.

Honestley id be more surprised if they didnt...and not just the CIA.

that wikileaks creator some years ago hacked pentagon. only reason he still walks the earth is because of popularity he gained with wikileaks. and still is possibility that he will "disappear" since that soldier sent him 100 of thousands of secret documents. there is no problem for any government to kill people they don't like - it's not like they always do the papers and let news stations to know that this and that will be assassinated because of this and that. specially in cases where someone hacks pentagon - if they want him dead they wont make it official.

just watch wikirebels movie: linkt to youtube

Julian Assange is a hero,the u.s govenment is evil.they destroy there own country then blame it on other people.

All governments by definition are evil, since they are all self serveing.


Yes, the CIA would remove anyone that they were told to remove. It's what they do.
.

The other intersting thing is how on earth does a low level soldier get info like that? That's all classiffied, it wouldn't even be on the computers he would have access to. Something bigger is going on here.

I suspect he was given the ino on purpose. It's probably an internal fight between different agencies. Since Homeland security was created to make sure all those groups "share" info with each other. Interestingly enough, soon as this came out those agencies stoped shareing as much.

Umm.. I think you're confusing the leaks if you mean the low level soldier as private Manning.

Private Manning was charged for releasing the Iraq war files.

The latest cables were not from him.

The current ones were State Department yes. I still think it's an internal fight between different agencies. ATF, CIA, FBI, DEA, DNR. who knows what half these agencies are really up to? They have stopped shareing info like they were under Homeland Security guidelines, citeing the "leaks" as thier reason, conviently. ;)

I mention the DNR because of my weird experiance with them. I applied to be a park ranger since I had a dagree in Enviromental science and had served in the Military. My clearance wasn't high enough. I only had a 7 and you needed a 13 or higher to be considered. This. despite the fact I was a vet and had experiance with explosives no less. I don't think the state's Governor would have high enough clearance. Just what do they do up in those national parks anyway? :eek:

hero
 

he is a real hero .. he showed the real face of USA..

Wich would be what? That the US army is highly trained and professional? That really isn't a surrprise to anyone who has delt with American troops. I suppose you could mean how it reveals that the US safeguards it's own interests the same as any nation? Wow, not really a surprise there either. Perhaps it show's how the US is one of the few nation's that actually tries to nation build?

It confirms that the Iraq and Afghanistan occupation has been a complete mess and the US has tried to cover a lot of it up.

It also confirms that what the US says and what the US does are completely different things.

ha, ha !
 

You are so naive:)
Take an offer and you will be labeled as terrorist with all further negative consequences.....

That the US is spying on other countries? How is that a 'real face'. Most major countries conduct some sort of espionage, it's just easy to forget it ever happens if you never hear about it.

What the US is saying about those other countries.

Not to mention that the cables didn't just expose the US. The king of Saudi Arabia and some Chinese diplomats were also exposed among others.

But it isn't nearly as fun to put down Saudi Arabia and China.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

And I think "put down" is not an accurate description of anything I've said.

It wasn't necessarily directed at you.

OK.. I'm still curious as to what you meant by your comment though.

I am not sure how I can be more clear. It's not as fun and popular to make fun of places like Saudi Arabia when the US can be poked at.

Yeah but I wanted you to elaborate. Who's picking on the US? What do you mean by fun?

I don't feel like being cross-examined. Go back a page and it is clear.

Afganistan and Iraq aren't messes from American interest's perspective..That's what your missing Ronin. As to secrets, all armies have those. Still your wrong about the US not saying and doing the same thing, if you really look at what US objectives truely are, they have been doing exactly that from the very beginning.

lol.. you're paranoid.

Here's a hint. Stop being so sensitive to criticism of your country.

Like what? Give me an example.

I appreciate the psychological evaluation, but any unfair statement about anything gets criticized. Obviously I am not the only one that feels that way.

Then address it directly instead of trying to play the victim.

Please cut the drama, Ronin. I am not playing the victim.

I did not like these remarks. They are obviously simple attacks on the US based in very little than the wave of anti-US sentiment.

That's how I interpreted it. You're acting like noone criticizes Saudi Arabia or China and everyone picks on poor America. It's bullsh*t to be quite honest. There is so much criticism of both countries amongst others that to try and measure who receives the most criticism would be pointless.

I agree.. they are stupid remarks made by stupid people. If you had just done this from the beginning then I would have had no problem with it.

It was a flip remark, Ronin. Maybe you are the one being overly sensitive, overly analytical, and sucking the air out of the thread.

lol.. whatever.

I don't believe it was a flip remark. I believe you were directing your comments towards me initially but now realise that you don't have a case.

You quoted me after all.

I quoted you as evidence that it wasn't only the US that is criticized in Wikileaks because you mentioned that Saudi Arabia and China are also mentioned. I was basically agreeing with you and made a flip remark about it. How come it has to be the other guy who is always paranoid?

Don't bother answering. This is my last post in this part of the conversation.

Well then there was no need to be so evasive earlier then.

You provide half answers and evade my questions and then when I interpret things the way I do you try and flip the paranoid thing around on me.

If anyone is to blame for the last page or so it was you.

I'm out.

Lets look at the actual "crimes" hes commited.

1) He slept with a women in Sweeden, it was consensual.

Here i understand it gets complicated and have heard a several reports.

-the condom broke.

- he did not impregnate her.

- he did not infect her with any disease.

- They did infact enjoy consensual sex.

turns out its a crime on the male side if condoms break.

2) this one is more serious as basically is rape.

he had sex with a women without protection and while she was sleeping.....


If you ever visit Sweeden pack huge/massive/unbreakable condoms.


To finish are you really that suprised that national armed forces commit atrocities or that they have been sent there to achieve goals that they are not aware of?

History books are your friend

-tea
-spices
-slaves
-drugs

guess what OIL.

anyway were going of tangent here.

Assanges crimes are a little debatable as at the end of the day he just said it to the world!

and although he isnt american...is he still allowed rights under the 1st ammendment? (freedom of speech)

If so weres the crime?
-----------------------------------------------------------