Your question was answered. He cannot be sued for war crime because his action does not qualify the legal definition of "warcrime".You could as well ask if he could be sued for raping somebody. If you see somebody stealing a car you hardly can sue him for forging some elections.

Take note of that the term "war crime" is not randomly chosen, or is not arbitrarily in content, but is defined in international treaties and conventions. If you use the term, stick to these. If you don't, do not use the term as well.

Even a really bad half trained failed lawyer wouldn't try to argue that.
As Sky said you are using specific terms where they cannot possibly apply in law.
As was asked earlier, name the war crime?
Unless you casn find some legal basis your questions about war crimes are pointless.

Thank you again . Can you show the parts of international law which specifically exempt Herr Assange from prosecution under international law?


yep I want you to do the leg work. But I want you to look for the negative. Good luck!

You start to behave like troll. Your original question has been precisely answered. The answer to your question whether or not he could be sued over war crimes, has been given. The hint to a summary and quick overview what the legal understanding of "warcrimes" is, I now give to you for the second AND THE LAST time. Either you get the answer to your original question now, or you don't. The historic background of how the term emegred and got anchored in international conventions and bills, is included. If you would have read it the first time, you would know it by now.

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

Like most questions they don't end wit the answer given. but engender new questions. To label me a troll only shows the weakness of your answer(s).

Start over and perhaps you can see my question as something more than a ideological exercise, and help you in your effort to believe what you are saying. Just a thought.

Requoting Ducimus to put this thread back on the track.

So what about this? Some folks here have cast doubt that this might happen. Some folks seem to think the media has done an acceptable job protecting real people from this exact thing.

No comments?

If you want mine, I've given them. Sad, but perfection is impossible or at lesat impractical, and trying to hold one side's feet to the fire for a small number of errors while not for the other side's (when it is really their job, and their failure to do it precipitated this) large amount of errors is hypocritical.

Again you talk like this is the score of some game. Media 1, US Military 0?

Where do you get off saying that I don't hold my government responsible for their mistakes? I want to see the traitor who released this information court martialed, and if found guilty, given the maximum penalty allowed under the UCMJ. Is that enough for you not to see me as a hypocrite?

ON the question of whether they are competent (which you asked), one objective way to do so is by comparing the percentage they got right vs wrong.

To answer your point about consequences, permit an analogy. Suppose we are both architectural students. I get about 99% of the questions right on the exam, so I become an architect. You can't get 20% of them right, so you don't. One day, unfortunately, in an understaffed project (so I have to carry a heavy workload with little redundancy) I make a few errors among countless decisions and calculations in designing a building, and unfortunately it was in a bad spot so the building folded. Obviously, that the building collapsed is my responsibility, and the consequences of my error quite large compared to yours in the sxam. But it does not mean I'm less competent than you as an architect.

I know you are blaming them for this direction. Unfortunately, you are forsaking the forest for the trees.

Irrelevant. By publishing these documents they have created a completely new source of military intelligence for our enemy that is in addition to whatever wrongs that you imagine the US Government to have done.

Why can't you understand that?

You are defending something because you feel it's not as bad as different things done by someone else. That's like excusing rape because others have committed murder.

Bottom line here is that people will die directly because of the publishing of these documents for ratings and profit. Now either you think that is inexcusable or not.

What happened to the possibility US government's concealment of these documents (even you must accept that most of them are actually clean) being motivated by selfish desires? One side must be selfish and the other is purely altruistic? How politically reliable you are!

Yeah ok. Like any government ever has provided a higher level of access to ongoing military operations than the US has.

Perhaps you define "selfish" as not wanting to risk the lives of our soldiers as well as those who are working with us by giving our enemy detailed insight into our day to day operations.

Yeah that must be it. After all how else could you even try to justify the half assed editing job we both know the media did?

My feeling is that if Mr. Obama had wanted to stop Herr Assange from divulging this information he could have done so easily.


In fact he wouldn't be walking freely at this moment, Herr Assange, that is.

And that's because the people always pressed for it. It would not continue if every person simply blindfaiths into the military propaganda.

No that's altruistic. What's strange is how you can only think about such motives when it comes to the US military, while for its critics you can only come up with selfish ones.

As for half-assed editing, again, they are having a much higher hit rate on these 92000 documents than the US military.

If you want to say that given that it is impossible to guarantee perfection, and given the high consequences of an error, it would be better to withold the information, that's at least a defensible, if tactical position. To say that they are incompetent for failing to meet an impossible standard isn't.

What do you mean "higher hit rate"? The US Military is not deliberately releasing this information, the media is. These documents were stolen by a traitor who i hope they hang for his betrayal and your darlings in the international media are publishing it where our enemies can read it for no other reason than to make a profit.

So you can defend the media all you want but doesn't change the fact that they are amateurs playing with peoples lives for money and they are aiding the very people we're trying to defeat.