Assange Is Fucked
- Thread starter nvanprooyen
- Start date
This spy worked in collusion with an inside man(ostensibly Manning).
The truth is now so self-evident that even one of the main leftist WF operatives was forced to answer the question.
A tsunami wave of truth is building.
Who else is ready to acknowledge the truth and denounce Assange as a spy?
The truth is now so self-evident that even one of the main leftist WF operatives was forced to answer the question.
A tsunami wave of truth is building.
Who else is ready to acknowledge the truth and denounce Assange as a spy?
That's not how it works, dipshit.
The US and international law enforce have a talk about it first and try to strike a deal. An extradition might be part of the deal, but not always.
This is something that every country does when their citizen is caught causing problems internationally. It's not anything special that America tries to do.
It's sad that you still don't get it. So, let me lay it out for you.
Now, with that in mind, Assange is not a spy.spy (sp)n. pl. spies (sp
z)
1. An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
2. One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.
v. spied (spd), spy·ing, spies (spz)
v.tr.1. To observe secretly with hostile intent.
Assange did not encourage people to go out and spy on the government, especially not for malicious intent. So, he is not guilty of espionage.
Now, knowing that you'll say something to the affect, "The site's there to submit classified and secret information, so he is encouraging them in a passive manner," I will go ahead and quote you the definition that the US Department of Defense uses to describe espionage.
Wikileaks is not there to harm any government, it's there to be a resource for reporters and a nation's people in order to keep a check on its activities.
From Wikileaks:
Notice, they are there to bring news and information to the public. Not there to cause harm to a government, which is what they go on to say.
Now that I've outlined the purpose of Wikileaks, Assange can hardly be considered a spy, let alone guilty of espionage by the dictionary or Department of Defense's definition.
You might also like to keep this in mind, and get your facts straight. Snippet from this article, which is located of all places - the Huffington Post, a news source that you undoubtedly frequent since you are a conservative.
Wikileaks is a resource for reporters and human rights activists to pull and share international information so that they can report on actual happenings. It's not a haven for espionage.
Sounds like every single news outlet that advertises for people to call their tip line and report "corruption at city hall" stories.
We have no idea whose employment Assange is in.
We have no idea of what was said between Assange and Manning.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm becoming more and more convinced this is part of a larger operation. Look at "Operation Payback". Look at the escalation of the violence in England. There is a larger strategy going on here.
Remember what Assange said:
This is essentially a military operation, the only question is... for whom?
Theft of government property, Receipt of stolen government property, and Wire Fraud are a few other options but it doesn't really matter they will find something and stick it to him and let the jury decide. Sex crimes wouldn't result in the banking industry to freeze his accounts..... there is more happening behind the scenes I bet.
But you sure do like changing how I bolded the important part of the quote. You're missing the key phrase, "with the intent, or reason to believe".
I could read in the newspaper that someone was opening up a new abortion clinic. If I believed that it was wrong to have abortion clinics, I might be of an irrational mind to think that killing the owner was justified. Does that also make the reporter who reported on the opening of the clinic an accessory to murder since I found out about it from reading their story? No, it doesn't because the reporter didn't have the intent or reason to believe that I would commit such a crime.
The same is true of Wikileaks. They put the truth out there and let the people decide how to use it, just as any newspaper or media agency does.
We don't know if he has a hand in encouraging those people to DDoS websites, so it is very premature and wrong to assume such.
Going on his previous behavior of enjoying the spotlight, I'd say that if he were behind it, he'd have let it slip by now to say something along the lines of, "That's what happens when you cut funding to Wikileaks, it can't be stopped".
Since he hasn't gloated over it, I'd say it's just some extremist that is fighting for their cause.
I highly doubt this, again you're trying to make Assange out to be a terrorist/spy when he's not.
Except tip lines don't solicit information that requires illegal activity so they can run with "Gaddafi has a hot Ukrainian nurse" stories.
I honestly wouldn't mind WikiLeaks if they weren't violating the privacy of American diplomatic communication.
At this point, the content of their cables are less whistleblowing and more tabloid reporting.
That is the most naive statement you have made yet. So what is the chance that the US would ever extradite Hilary Clinton (or any other US citizen that is currently in the US for that matter) to be tried abroad on espionage charges on an overseas government? If you are honest you know that the answer is ZERO, not a fucking chance in hell.
Any way this is completely off topic as he is not a spy by ANY definition of the word (except for maybe one that you make up yourself), he is a journalist and the only spy/traitor in this whole thing is the american soldier who took the files and passed them on to a news organization illegally (actually several).
@hellblazer... so you agree that assange is protected as a reporter then? I am glad.
I guess if I am predicting right your argument is that reporters shouldn't be protected if they disclose information that is "vital" to national security?
The argument does make sense but it is dangerous to allow an all powerful government to decide itself what is vital to National Security.
Our government was founded with the intention of having many checks on federal power. The strongest of those have already been eroded. The founding fathers understood that power corrupts. If you look at the actions of almost every single one of the first presidents you can see this happening. Even the most freedom supporting people had a tendency to turn tyrannical (In a very limited sense by todays standards) when they started running into problems.
What is a reasonable balance of power? A situation that lets the government protect its secrets, but gives free reign to publish those secrets once the cat's out of the bag? I think that works.
Honestly US loss of power is going to come for economic reasons, not military. If we try to hold onto power militarily that we have lost economically we will end up in a worse international shit storm than we have to deal with now.
I guess if I am predicting right your argument is that reporters shouldn't be protected if they disclose information that is "vital" to national security?
The argument does make sense but it is dangerous to allow an all powerful government to decide itself what is vital to National Security.
Our government was founded with the intention of having many checks on federal power. The strongest of those have already been eroded. The founding fathers understood that power corrupts. If you look at the actions of almost every single one of the first presidents you can see this happening. Even the most freedom supporting people had a tendency to turn tyrannical (In a very limited sense by todays standards) when they started running into problems.
What is a reasonable balance of power? A situation that lets the government protect its secrets, but gives free reign to publish those secrets once the cat's out of the bag? I think that works.
Honestly US loss of power is going to come for economic reasons, not military. If we try to hold onto power militarily that we have lost economically we will end up in a worse international shit storm than we have to deal with now.
Based on what specific evidence are you spewing this Hillary Clinton garbage? You have no proof.
Gawd, your idiocy makes me want to gloat in American power even more.
So I guess you haven't read anything about Wikileaks and their actual leaks? Maybe that part was left out of the news sources you watch/read
Whether she is or isn't is not relevant to the question. The question is if she or any US citizen was caught spying and was back on US soil what do you think the chance of them being extradited to face charges? ZERO and you know it.
Why am I trying to debate with such an insular dunce???????
So I guess you haven't read anything about Wikileaks and their actual leaks? Maybe that part was left out of the news sources you watch/read
Whether she is or isn't is not relevant to the question. The question is if she or any US citizen was caught spying and was back on US soil what do you think the chance of them being extradited to face charges? ZERO and you know it.
Why am I trying to debate with such an insular dunce???????
The cables mentioned nothing about the chances of Clinton getting extradited. Nothing said she has zero chance of getting extradited to face charges.
Think you done here bro. You got no arguments to make. Your bucket is empty.
What the fuck are you talking about???? The cables say that she told diplomats to spy in the UN. You clearly have absolutely no background knowledge about the leaks whatsoever and haven't even bothered to do a bit of research, so I am not going to debate the issue with you as you are only arguing with rhetoric and nothing you say is based on fact. Please go an get an education and stop wasting your time trying to play with the big boys cause you are gonna get even more pwnd than you already have. You are just embarrassing yourself and hurting the argument you think you stand for.
You know, there are smart liberals, then there are libtards.
You, my friend...
are not a smart liberal.
Running in circles to justify your bullshit. One minute you're making grand claims about Hillary Clinton being unextraditable, claiming there's proof of that in the cables.
Now you're saying all you have is "She told diplomats to spy." With no evidence that she is unextraditable.
Nice going with the kamikazi argument. I hear bad logic is big in Europe.
^^ AMEN. Now that is one clear headed smart thinking argument. Please watch it and learn something!
Learn to read. You are one confused fuck. I never said anything of the sort. Your brain is clearly just too weak to be able to understand rational logical argument.
Just to break it down for you:-
1) You and your dickhead friend said that Assange is a Spy so should get tried in the US as such
2) Clinton was getting diplomats to spy in the US - That is in Wikileaks, not my opinion
3) I argued that according to your logic that Clinton should be extradited under similar charges. But she never would be as the US would never extradite one of their own citizens on espionage charges.
4) You went off on some fucktard tangent with an argument that only you can decipher
5) Your ass got handed you on a plate.
Now go away.
Learn to read. You are one confused fuck. I never said anything of the sort. Your brain is clearly just too weak to be able to understand rational logical argument.
Just to break it down for you:-
1) You and your dickhead friend said that Assange is a Spy so should get tried in the US as such
2) Clinton was getting diplomats to spy in the US - That is in Wikileaks, not my opinion
3) I argued that according to your logic that Clinton should be extradited under similar charges. But she never would be as the US would never extradite one of their own citizens on espionage charges.
4) You went off on some fucktard tangent with an argument that only you can decipher
5) Your ass got handed you on a plate.
Now go away.