Is Assange being framed?

Is Assange being framed?


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
I imagine that the family and friends of every operative murdered in the ME does not think Assange should be Thing of the Year.

They would probably side with my suicide suggestion...
 
I imagine that the family and friends of every operative murdered in the ME does not think Assange should be Thing of the Year.

exactly or any other country where these leaks exposed people

what i don't get is...everytime i ask people what the benefit is, they run and then blather about the 1st amendment...seriously....what benefit have we all been given due to the release of these documents?

answer = none
 
Is there a list of people who have been killed as a result of WikiLeaks?

no...and IF anyone has been killed, i highly doubt it would be made public knowledge...

can you list a benefit we've gained from the release?

what do you think about wiki releasing our strategic assets? i posted a couple of times the link to the cable or whatever that wikileaks released that details our strategic assets, places etc....and that information is a gold mine to any terrorist
 
no...and IF anyone has been killed, i highly doubt it would be made public knowledge...

can you list a benefit we've gained from the release?

what do you think about wiki releasing our strategic assets? i posted a couple of times the link to the cable or whatever that wikileaks released that details our strategic assets, places etc....and that information is a gold mine to any terrorist

Yes. The belief we once had that most politicians were crooked liars was incorrect.
We now KNOW that most politicians are crooked liars and that means they are going to have to start representing the people who voted for them and not the crooked people who line their pockets.

That
is
a benefit.

On the world stage I would hope that the USA might come to realise that we outside the US have your number and we will no longer accept your bullying tactics.



Not unless you pay us lots more anyway!
 
If you want a list of dead bodies, Mojo, just assume that everyone who is native to the ME, whose name appears on the list is already dead, and possibly accompanied by any families they may have had. Extrapolate from there.
 
Yes. The belief we once had that most politicians were crooked liars was incorrect.
We now KNOW that most politicians are crooked liars and that means they are going to have to start representing the people who voted for them and not the crooked people who line their pockets.

That
is
a benefit.

On the world stage I would hope that the USA might come to realise that we outside the US have your number and we will no longer accept your bullying tactics.



Not unless you pay us lots more anyway!

We have just found out that Burma is in the process of building a nuclear weapon.
 
exactly or any other country where these leaks exposed people

what i don't get is...everytime i ask people what the benefit is, they run and then blather about the 1st amendment...seriously....what benefit have we all been given due to the release of these documents?

Answer = US officials now realise that instituting some basic security measures are a 'good idea'.
 
I imagine that the family and friends of every operative murdered in the ME does not think Assange should be Thing of the Year.

They would probably side with my suicide suggestion...

most likely because they are too sheeple to blame the government.....where it rightfully belongs.
 
So the government can keep the identities of masses of WikiLeak victims a secret, but failed to prevent the leaks in the first place?

"Now, I’m suddenly bemused at the reaction both from the Democrats and the Conservative peanut gallery, who have rallied to condemn both Manning and Assange, and somehow compare the pair to terrorists.

Don’t get me wrong; I get the whole ‘putting people’s lives at risk’ thing. The first leak, which was too undiscerning in redacting the names of informants in Afghanistan, seemed the most imprudent. It’s only now, after the latest release — which seems to have much more diplomatic bickering and much fewer strategy reports — that the anti-Wikileaks fervor is galvanized. Only now is Wikileaks having its servers pulled and Paypal account dropped. Only now do Clinton, Huckabee, and Palin seem to care.

But if Julian Assange and Bradley Manning weren’t going to release this information, who was? How can we expect the American public to be able to informedly vote for elected officials if it has no idea what’s going on? If the threat of an ascendent Iran is grave enough to unite America, the Arabs, and Israel, shouldn’t the American public know that before they cast their ballots? Shouldn’t we get to decide whether or not our country cooperates with tyrants, or appeases degenerates? At the very least, let us know every four years, before elections are coming up.

And that is the true value of Wikileaks. The success of democracy depends on all parties involved being well-informed. If the U.S. government deliberately prevents the distribution of information that concerns who we, as citizens, should be electing to public office, it’s hard to blame us, the citizens, for electing idiots time and time again. Or perhaps their plan was simply to cut the American public out of the process entirely. And a poor democracy that would be indeed.

In this controversy there is an apt lesson for the politicians of today: there will be more leaks in the future, but citizens needs to know what is going on from the government directly. We need that information to vote, to do business, to know when to talk and when to fight. Reporters can only get so much out of interviews and press conferences. Former Wikileaks employee Daniel Dormscheit-Berg has left his former employer and plans to start a new incarnation of Wikileaks, sans dictatorial Assange-style leadership. But it would seem that Wikileaks is learning from its mistakes. Our elected officials and arm-chair pundits would do well to do the same."


http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N60/markson.html
 
"...it's interesting (and a bit distressing) to see how some in the press -- who should be his biggest supporters -- are acting. Glenn Greenwald highlighted how a Time Magazine report on the potential US legal case against Assange misstated a variety of facts -- including the idea that Wikileaks itself had published "thousands" of classified State Department cables and that it had done so "indiscriminately." As Greenwald points out Wikileaks itself has only published a little over 1,000 of the cables, and nearly all of them are the ones that the press has already posted/vetted/reported on.

This is a part of the story that isn't getting much coverage. While most of the news reports have said that Wikileaks published over 250,000 such cables, that's not exactly true. It has over 250,000 such cables and appears to have passed them on to its media partners, but it's slowly releasing specific cables -- with redactions -- and mostly after the press partners are releasing those same cables. In other words, it appears that Wikileaks is actually being judicious and discriminating in what it's releasing. Or, you could say (and probably should say) that Wikileaks is actually doing much of what a journalist would do in selecting which documents to pass along at this time.

But by trying to claim that Wikileaks is "just" a data dump, it's an effort to make Wikileaks look like it's not a journalistic or media entity -- thereby affording it fewer First Amendment rights. But, it appears that some in the press, such as Time, are being quite misleading in doing so. After Greenwald called them on it, Time issued a "correction," but it's a "correction that's not a correction" in that they basically say that Assange and some others disagree with some of Time's claims. But it makes no attempt to fix the factually incorrect statements.

Of course, this may come back to the view that many have: that certain elements in the press are upset about Wikileaks because it shows what a crappy job they've been doing on their own. If we had a functioning press that actually sought to hold the US government accountable, there would be much less of a need for Wikileaks. Instead, we have a press that focuses on keeping "access" to those in power, and that means not digging too deep at times."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/12513512236/how-press-misleads-about-wikileaks.shtml
 
But if Julian Assange and Bradley Manning weren’t going to release this information, who was?

No one, as it should be. This isn't the secret lives of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, which you can read all about in the Star. This is stuff that actually matters.
 
WikiLeaks has released 1,200 of a quarter-million cables said to be in its possession.

Does any one have any evidence of any actual harm resulting from this?
 
WikiLeaks has released 1,200 of a quarter-million cables said to be in its possession.

Does any one have any evidence of any actual harm resulting from this?

Well, he has pissed off the Indians, Pakistanis, North Koreans, Chinese and Iranians. A force for good I'd say.
 
Back
Top