SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Julian Assange arrested (merged)

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Julian Assange arrested (merged) (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=177756)

Why doesn't the U.S. Gov just do what they did when a UFO was 'found' at Roswell?
First an Army Guy says 'Yes we found one!'
:rock:
Then they say 'No we dian't. It was a balloon.'
:88)

Then Deny, Deny, Deny!
:03:
To take the approach in process only lends to the belivability of the released stuff.
:doh:

Then again, I don't work for the Unwittingly Stupid Gov.
So what would I know.
:haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer (Post 1551587)

So what would I know.

Indeed.

Quote:

"LYING IS NOT PATRIOTIC
by Ron Paul

WikiLeaks’ release of classified information has generated a lot of attention world-wide in the past few weeks.

The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news.

Despite what is claimed, information so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing a grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neo-conservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principle supporter and financier of Al Qaeda and this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government.

This emphasizes even more the fact that no Al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did.

It has been charged, by self-proclaimed experts, that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime deserving prosecution for treason and execution or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing U.S. secret information, that he did not steal?

And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn’t the Washington Post, New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.

The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents.

The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional Record by Senator Mike Gravel with no charges being made of breaking any National Security laws.

Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam War and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by Weapons of Mass Destruction or Al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information.

Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal for our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.

Questions to consider:

1. Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

2. Could a larger question be: how can an Army Private gain access to so much secret material?

3. Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government’s failure to protect classified information?

4. Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?

5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths; lying us into war, or WikiLeaks’ revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6. If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information, that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7. Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

8. Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in the time of a declared war – which is treason – and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption?

9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it’s wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised: “Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.”

Ron Paul asks the right questions. :up:
And yes, lying to your constituents is not patriotic. :salute:

I do not have a complete impression of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel and what they stand for, but on the few opportunities I stumbled over a transcription of something they said, or a short video snippet, I was listening to healthy reason and a very sane mind. I now stop and listen first when I realise they are commenting on something of international importance. I don't do that for many politicians, for most politicians are not worth the time being wasted.

I respect Ron Paul more than any politician out there, which is why I voted for him in the last election. Thomas Jefferson also said

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
-Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

On the other hand, the charges against the accused refer to "sexual offenses". Is this real, or just an excuse?

you know, Julian Assange and wikileaks is the new KGB

back than if you weren't satisfied with your government, you would leak information to the KGB. Now you would leak it to Wikileaks

Can the people with wikileaks be charged with espionage?:hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1552356)

On the other hand, the charges against the accused refer to "sexual offenses". Is this real, or just an excuse?

the charges are real in so far that there is a complainant, but in reality it is an excuse. There has been a complaint of the sort that in itself under normal circumstances would be unlikely to get as far as court. But it is my opinion that US pressure has resulted in:
- the swedish police are making very strong efforts to indict and extradite him from the UK
- the UK denying substantial bail
- the US preparing to extradite him from Sweden.

How can i say this?

the timing of the Swedish charge was first brought just after the Afghan war logs were released, but very soon afterwards were dropped. Then the charges were brought up again with the diplomatic cable release and this time pursued more vigorously. A factor here could be that the Afghan war logs were released in one phase, and no action could halt the process, but the diplomatic cable release is an ongoing process. The timing to me indicates very clear political influence.

-The British judge denied bail claiming he was a serious risk of absconding!! This despite the fact that he turned himself in even though he probably knew personally dozens of people prepared to offer safe houses. It defies logic to assume that someone who turns themselves in and thereby declaring their intention to follow legal procedure, should then be expected to abscond after posting bail. This simple logical failure indicates the judge was given the appropriate decision to hand down from political superiors

-Just before warrant for extradition was completed a senior US legal figure involved in the pursuit of Assange (sadly i forget who exactly it was) was on British television saying that it is a normal procedure to arrest someone on an existing charge in order to have them in custody while preparing the main charge against them. (N.B. A british person in such a position would never show such candour!). This was in short an admission that as far as he was concerned Assange would not be staying in Sweden long enough to actually answer a sexual offense charge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tyrant (Post 1552375)

you know, Julian Assange and wikileaks is the new KGB

back than if you weren't satisfied with your government, you would leak information to the KGB. Now you would leak it to Wikileaks

Right because John Walker and Ron Pelton were dissatisfied with the US Government. :roll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tyrant (Post 1552375)

No, not really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tyrant (Post 1552375)

Can the people with wikileaks be charged with espionage?:hmmm:

I assume you meant people at wikileaks

Yes they can. Now getting a conviction will be tough. But there is nothing preventing the US government from charging them with the crime

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1552494)

I assume you meant people at wikileaks

Yes they can. Now getting a conviction will be tough. But there is nothing preventing the US government from charging them with the crime

Getting them over to the US could be a whole lot more difficult though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 1552272)

The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents.

No one has ever said that Dr. Paul is overly burned with facts or history. :nope:

The New York Times was not found "not guilty" of anything as they were never charged with any crime. The Supreme Court case dealt with whether the government could restrict publication. The court ruled that no the government, in this specific case, could not. But the New York Times was not charged with any crime and therefore could not be found "not guilty".

Daniel Ellsberg did not serve any time in jail because charges were dropped in his trial due to misconduct on the part of the government. We will never know whether a court would have convicted Ellsberg or not. Based on the evidence known at the time, a conviction of Dr. Ellsberg and Russo would be probable. Dr. Paul's comment about Ellsberg not serving a day in jail can be misleading.

Dr. Paul is enjoyable to read, but his credibility leaves much to be desired

The U.S. would have to wave the Death Sentence for the Crime.
I can't recall the last time any Nation turned someone over that might face Death.
:hmmm:

It must be feared that the US tries to create a new law "on the fly" for the simple purpose of finding an excuse to demand extradiction of Assange and suing him over something. The fixiation on Assange is already driven by nothing more than "shooting the messenger for the bad news".

That would equal a frontal assault on the free press and it'S function of counter-control and monitoring of the government. The media are not called for no reason the fourth power in a state.

One also must remember that Wikileaks has won valuable merits in publishing once hidden information in the past 3 years that helped to shed light on unacceptable issues, and to demask lies in national politics and misleading of the public in many other countries, not just the US. In times of political parties and governments having won massive influence over the public media (Berlusconi in Italy, the Rundfunkrat in Germany, the agitation platform FOX in the US), turning them into propaganda tools for their own personal power intewrests, the media is failing its function as the fourth power in the state/society. That'S why I argue that there is a vital, essential need for platforms like Wikileaks - they serve i the function to help the citizens protecting themselves against the conspiracies of their governments.

Wikileaks has done nothing criminal. Governments and politicians have. And they want the lies they tell their people to stay in the dark.

It was claimed that the Iraq release would risk lives. Does it risk as many lives as the war itself - based on and excused with lies - has caused? Has anybody being killed directly due to the Wikileaks Iraq release?

It was claimed that the Afghanistan release would risk lives. Does it risk as many lives as the war itself - based on and excused with lies - has caused? Has anybody being killed directly due to the Wikileaks Afghanistan release?

It was claimed that the Cablegate release would risk lives. Does it risk as many lives as the American support for autocratic tyrannies and barbarian regimes is causing? Has anybody being killed directly due to the Wikileaks Cablegate release so far?

What I see is a falling empire willing to defend its claims for absolute power even by using the methods of the Chinese regime. Is that really a compliment for that power? Does that do justice to the moral claims it states for itself?

No.

Meanwhile:

Manipulating the Political Dwarfes of Europe

So depressing true.