Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange

[edjr 6,608]

The openness and transparency WikiLeaks has given us is invaluablewhich is why Im donating $20,000 to get its founder out of jail.

 

Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

 

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

 

 

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

 

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

 

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turnedand now it's Big Brother who's being watched… by us!

 

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept… as secrets.

 

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

 

Supporters of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, hold posters during a protest in front of the British Embassy in Madrid, Spain on

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

 

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, the 9/11 attacks might have been prevented.)

 

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from ###### Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launchedor rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

 

 

Openness, transparencythese are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkinthere had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

 

Instead, secrets killed them.

 

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Pleasenever, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail moneyand we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

 

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

 

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

 

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

 

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

 

P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 p.m. today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.

 

 

I am not a democract and far from a liberal, but we need more transparency from our gubment, not less.

[GettnHuge 2]

didn't realize he was still alive

[nikki2200 4]

The openness and transparency WikiLeaks has given us is invaluable—which is why I’m donating $20,000 to get its founder out of jail.

 

 

 

 

I am not a democract and far from a liberal, but we need more transparency from our gubment, not less.

 

I was kinda anti-Wikileaks (except for the aliens!!!!), but when I read that, it made me change my mind a little. I see what he is saying. However I still do have a huge issue with releasing anything that could pose threats to the US or our allies' security like they did with that leaked list of terrorist targets. It's a fine line and it's going to get crossed and I'm not OK with that.

[KSB2424 3,148]

If exposing corruption, fraud, and lies was his only motive I would be behind him too. But it's not. He's going and gone too far. He hates America and has made us, you and me, more vulnerable. Let alone others in the feild. He's published things that have nothing to do with "corruption" and only to do with our National Security. Therefore he's a terrorist. No two ways around it.

[edjr 6,608]

If exposing corruption, fraud, and lies was his only motive I would be behind him too. But it's not. He's going and gone too far. He hates America and has mude us, you and me, more vulnerable. He's published things that have nothing to do with "corruption" and only to do with our National Security. Therefore he's a terrorist. No two ways around it.

 

Finally someone answered that's not on ignore.

 

I'd like to disagree with you, but I haven't read one single thing wikileaks has ever posted and I haven't the slightest idea what all the hubub is about.

 

I am just saying we need more transparency from the gubment and without this guy, we'd have none, so it seems.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Finally someone answered that's not on ignore.

 

I'd like to disagree with you, but I haven't read one single thing wikileaks has ever posted and I haven't the slightest idea what all the hubub is about.

 

I am just saying we need more transparency from the gubment and without this guy, we'd have none, so it seems.

Normally we are supposed to have the media to expose things like gov't corruption. The differnece is that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NY Times, USA Today, Yahoo!, ect. can't actually break laws to get information. And more importantly they don't hate America.

 

Is some of the stuff Wikileaks is exposing actually good? Sure. But that doesn't make it right to break laws to get it and it surely doesn't absolve them of releasing things that have nothing to do with corruption and only to do with hurting our National Security.

 

The fact that Michael Moore is bailing this guy out is sickening. He should use that money to change transparency laws here in America. He should try to change the system here, instead of supporting a terrorist.

[MDC 7,498]

I was kinda anti-Wikileaks (except for the aliens!!!!), but when I read that, it made me change my mind a little. I see what he is saying. However I still do have a huge issue with releasing anything that could pose threats to the US or our allies' security like they did with that leaked list of terrorist targets. It's a fine line and it's going to get crossed and I'm not OK with that.

 

I sort of agree with you, but the government always plays the "national security" card, even when the information is embarrassing. Also, our media publishes classified information from anonymous sources all the time and our laws err on the side of first amendment rights.

 

If the US seriously has a case against Assange based on international law they should bring it against him. These phony rape charges and financial attacks look more like the kind of thing that 3rd world regimes do to punish political dissidents. It's ridiculous.

 

I guess overall I'd have to say I'm on Assange's side.

[edjr 6,608]

I have my doubts about the whole sexual assault charges too...

 

ironic this comes out after he exposes the gubment?

 

The only reason the gubment has never tried to use sexual assault to take down Michael Moore, because even they know americans aren't dumb enough to think a lady would go on a date with michael moore

[nikki2200 4]

I sort of agree with you, but the government always plays the "national security" card, even when the information is embarrassing. Also, our media publishes classified information from anonymous sources all the time and our laws err on the side of first amendment rights.

 

If the US seriously has a case against Assange based on international law they should bring it against him. These phony rape charges and financial attacks look more like the kind of thing that 3rd world regimes do to punish political dissidents. It's ridiculous.

 

I guess overall I'd have to say I'm on Assange's side.

 

I dunno MDC. I'm not sure about the value of the Wikileaks "leaks" yet. When I read what Michael Moore was saying I could see that side of it. Knowing that Wikileaks is out there may deter people in positions of power from doing something shady if they know the potential for the public to know about it is out there.

 

If government officials are participating in corrupt activities, falsifying information that puts US lives at risk, or abusing their power, yes I think the public should know about it. I haven't read the 100s of 1000s of documents that have been released so far, but I read the summarized articles that are printed, and nothing from Wikileaks has really fallen into this category.

 

I'm not sure how valuable the "leaks" to date actually are. I'm pretty liberal. I hate war. I think it should only be used as an absolute last resort when all other avenues have been explored and there is a significant risk to our security or our way of life. War is nasty. Civilians are killed, troops are killed by friendly fire, soldiers sometimes misconduct themselves and cross lines. Can I blame them? I have no idea. I've never been in a kill or be killed scenario like the one war presents, so I don't know what I would do. While I don't necessarily think it's right, it's a reality. And everyone should understand that that is the reality when we enter a war. Anyone who needs Wikileaks to report that war is nasty and some bad sh!t happens has been living under a rock for the past 50 or so years. And leaking this kind of information to the "public", just makes the US look bad and feeds an already existing international anti-US sentiment.

 

Some of the leaks are stupid.... like Cablegate. Who the fock cares if Hillary thinks Putin has a fat ass (I made that up but you get my point)? It is dumb, it adds nothing, and it is just embarrassing. There is no upside to the public knowing this. Again, it just feeds the international anti-US sentiment.

 

Then there's a fourth category: threats to national security. I felt that Wikileaks went there and will most likely continue to. There is no value or upside to anyone except terrorists from publishing a list of international terrorist targets that, if taken out, would have the highest impact to the US. None.

 

Like I said before, I was pretty anti-Wikileaks before. I may change my mind if I get to find out about aliens. After reading what Michael Moore said, I kinda get it and I can see the value in its existence as a deterrent for bad behavior. But looking at the big picture, I think there is more negative than positive.

 

As for the rape charges.... yes they are BS, but I've already beaten that horse to death on other threads and don't feel like arguing with Sux's retarded logic anymore.

[DankNuggs 305]

I sort of agree with you, but the government always plays the "national security" card, even when the information is embarrassing. Also, our media publishes classified information from anonymous sources all the time and our laws err on the side of first amendment rights.

 

If the US seriously has a case against Assange based on international law they should bring it against him. These phony rape charges and financial attacks look more like the kind of thing that 3rd world regimes do to punish political dissidents. It's ridiculous.

 

I guess overall I'd have to say I'm on Assange's side.

You think its right to celebrate and encourage soldiers committing treason, stealing military secrets and giving them to a swedish foreigner who publishes it to our enemies? Beyond outrageous... this isn't transparancy. Its sad that the american citizenry has lost their integrity.

 

Anyone with a shred of integrity wouldn't support any of this nonsense.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I have my doubts about the whole sexual assault charges too...

 

ironic this comes out after he exposes the gubment?

 

The only reason the gubment has never tried to use sexual assault to take down Michael Moore, because even they know americans aren't dumb enough to think a lady would go on a date with michael moore

 

KSB explained my position pretty damned well. Assange is dangerous, and he's a terrorist. I'm also very suspicious of the rape charges as well, but I don't care if they're trumped up, and here's why:

 

Consider that bringing charges against someone for espionage - which is completely legitimate - has its shortcomings. The primary shortcoming is that such a charge will bring a trial, during which all sorts of "evidence" (read: all sorts of information which probably does cross the line to which KSB refers) will become public.

 

That cannot be allowed to happen, because it's not fully known just what this clown has gotten his hands on. In that light, if they can get rape charges to stick, it provides a pretty powerful bargaining tool to get him to relinquish what he has.

 

But perhaps not. All these alleged mirror sites worry me. Assange may have tacitly allowed his data to be mirrored everywhere, but that may not turn out to his benefit any more. If he no longer controls all the data, I suspect he will claim that has even more. This is a serious game of cat and mouse, and it could likely end up in his death.

 

He'd better know WTF he's doing, because his ass is seriously perched over an abyss.

 

I personally think he should be taken out with extreme prejudice by black ops.

[tikigods 76]

I just want to find out about aliens. Until then it's like watching monkeys fvck footballs.

[MDC 7,498]

You think its right to celebrate and encourage soldiers committing treason, stealing military secrets and giving them to a swedish foreigner who publishes it to our enemies? Beyond outrageous... this isn't transparancy. Its sad that the american citizenry has lost their integrity.

 

Anyone with a shred of integrity wouldn't support any of this nonsense.

 

I think without protections for Wikileaks and other news outlets the government will lie without impunity whenever it's convenient, even if it has nothing to do with national security. For example Wikileaks ran stories about torture and abuse at Guantanamo Bay that never would've seen the light of day otherwise. That's not a national security issue, that's the military covering up its own lawbreaking.

 

I find it curious that supposed small government "conservatives" are calling for our own government to assassinate foreign journalists. They don't trust the feds to administer healthcare reform but they do trust them to assassinate foreign journalists based on their unsupported claims that his stories threaten our interests.

 

Strange.

[Frank M 181]

I'm absolutely certain that Recliner Pilot has strong, well thought out opinions on this matter.

 

RP?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I agree with KSB24242424242424 on this. Transparency is good. A free press who looks to expose corruption, fraud and general unfairness is good. Some of the stuff that Wikileaks has posted is outside of the spirit or intent of a free press and into the area of a threat to national security.

 

As far as the rape charges, I think that if we had someone who was willing to dig into the charges a little deeper, expose the truth and find out what really happened, then he might be exonerrated. Oh wait, no one seems to want to do that sort of thing.

[DankNuggs 305]

I think without protections for Wikileaks and other news outlets the government will lie without impunity whenever it's convenient, even if it has nothing to do with national security. For example Wikileaks ran stories about torture and abuse at Guantanamo Bay that never would've seen the light of day otherwise. That's not a national security issue, that's the military covering up its own lawbreaking.

 

I find it curious that supposed small government "conservatives" are calling for our own government to assassinate foreign journalists. They don't trust the feds to administer healthcare reform but they do trust them to assassinate foreign journalists based on their unsupported claims that his stories threaten our interests.

 

Strange.

I don't trust the feds to do anything, i do trust the military as we have the best in the world.

 

You are a special kind of dense. Unsupported claims???? They were classified miliary documents. They named operatives. This is why people like you have no right to this stuff...

 

And if you are a terrorist being interrogated right now after all this gitmo nonsense, it gives you a psychological edge knowing that your best ally is our government.

[MDC 7,498]

I don't trust the feds to do anything, i do trust the military as we have the best in the world.

 

You are a special kind of dense. Unsupported claims???? They were classified miliary documents. They named operatives. This is why people like you have no right to this stuff...

 

And if you are a terrorist being interrogated right now after all this gitmo nonsense, it gives you a psychological edge knowing that your best ally is our government.

 

Some of the stuff Wikileaks has published bleeds over into national security issues. Most of it is just embarrassing in that it's refuted government claims about our conduct in the war. The problem is that the feds will always, always, ALWAYS play the "national security" card to limit information that gets out, even when that info doesn't pose any threat other than embarrassing us or refuting government lies.

 

To my knowledge there has been NO instance of Wikileaks publishing something that actually resulted in an attack or other harm to our military. For example the list of potential targets that was recently published - have any of them subsequently been attacked? Was any of that info our enemies didn't already know?

 

I wish Assange would be more responsible with the info he publishes. I also wish our government was transparent and trustworthy. Neither of those things seem to be the case. I'll err on the side of Assange's right to publish this information. If the US government has a legal case against Assange they should bring it. These thug tactics convince me they don't have much of an argument but I could be pursuaded otherwise.

[nikki2200 4]

 

To my knowledge there has been NO instance of Wikileaks publishing something that actually resulted in an attack or other harm to our military. For example the list of potential targets that was recently published - have any of them subsequently been attacked? Was any of that info our enemies didn't already know?

 

 

They were just published last week. I hope they never are attacked and it all becomes moot. But tell me.... what was the value of releasing that information to the public? What was the point? What benefit came from it? Is the public now more informed?

[MDC 7,498]

They were just published last week. I hope they never are attacked and it all becomes moot. But tell me.... what was the value of releasing that information to the public? What was the point? What benefit came from it? Is the public now more informed?

 

There is no value and I wish Assange would use some judgment in what he publishes rather than use Wikileaks as a dumping ground for whatever classified info he gets his hands on. I'm just saying, these claims that he's a terrorist who should be assassinated, etc. are overblown.

[nikki2200 4]

There is no value and I wish Assange would use some judgment in what he publishes rather than use Wikileaks as a dumping ground for whatever classified info he gets his hands on. I'm just saying, these claims that he's a terrorist who should be assassinated, etc. are overblown.

 

He may not be a terrorist, but he certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with providing information to them. I don't know if there is a good answer to this, but I can say that I am a little nervous sitting around waiting to see what he is going to perform for his next trick.

[MDC 7,498]

He may not be a terrorist, but he certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with providing information to them. I don't know if there is a good answer to this, but I can say that I am a little nervous sitting around waiting to see what he is going to perform for his next trick.

 

My general impression is that Assange hasn't published much that the enemy didn't already know or could benefit from seriously, and most of what he's put online has been embarrassing but not dangerous.

 

I'm more or less on the fence about this one and I wish the US feds would just go ahead and charge him with international crimes if they have some legal recourse, the fact that we use these thug tactics leads me to believe his actions aren't nearly as illegal or dangerous as they're made out to be.

 

Conservatives should be praising this guy. Instead they're call for his head in a noose.

[MedStudent 56]

The openness and transparency WikiLeaks has given us is invaluable—which is why I’m donating $20,000 to get its founder out of jail.

 

 

 

 

I am not a democract and far from a liberal, but we need more transparency from our gubment, not less.

 

There are other nonliberals who feel the same:

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=378734

[nikki2200 4]

My general impression is that Assange hasn't published much that the enemy didn't already know or could benefit from seriously, and most of what he's put online has been embarrassing but not dangerous.

 

I'm more or less on the fence about this one and I wish the US feds would just go ahead and charge him with international crimes if they have some legal recourse, the fact that we use these thug tactics leads me to believe his actions aren't nearly as illegal or dangerous as they're made out to be.

 

Conservatives should be praising this guy. Instead they're call for his head in a noose.

 

Do you really think terrorists had already compiled such a convenient and obscure list? I personally don't think so.

 

The Department of Homeland Security list, known as the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, included oil and gas pipelines, telecom cables, rare metal and other mines, military contractors, ocean navigation chokepoints and such obscure facilities as an Australian laboratory described as the sole supplier of Crotalid Polyvalent Antivenin – an antidote to rattlesnake venom.

 

This is just one of many articles on it. Google is your friend. http://www.presshera...2010-12-07.html

 

As for charging Assange with international crimes, I don't see how they can. And our government is scrambling right now. He didn't steal the documents. He merely printed what was given to him. First Amendment stuff and all of our laws and legal precedents support his right to do so. This is why he has not been brought up on charges. Unless they can prove he actively participated in the theft of the documents, there is nothing to charge him with. And at this point they would also have to go after every media outlet that reprinted the information, which is not going to happen. I don't believe that they are not charging him because what he is doing ain't so bad. It's because they can't. Just like they could not convict anyone during the Pentagon Papers leak in 1971 and why the Bob Woodwards of the world have never been prosecuted for printing classified information. First Amendment.

 

I disagree that he is not dangerous. He's already shown us glimpses that he will publish whatever he can get his hands on. His cause is not a moral crusade to end government corruption. It's about fame and fortune. And again... I fail to see the value in anything he has published to date. What did we learn? Some journalists were accidentally killed by US troops? Like I said earlier... sh!t like this happens during wartime and it's inevitable. And anyone who feels smarter from having the specific details surrounding incidents such as these, had their heads up their asses previously. Do the victims' families now feel better? What did we prove here and how have we all been enlightened?

 

At a minimum he has shown poor judgment. Worst case, he is a narcissistic maniac that will jeopardize people's lives and hide behind the concept of transparency and fighting corruption in order to gain more notoriety and money.

 

Why are my posts so long?

[SUXBNME 1,516]

Michael Moore

 

You dooshbags will listen to anybody

[nikki2200 4]

Some more information on potential prosecution of Assange for espionage.

 

Prosecutors have used the Espionage Act to convict officials who leaked classified information. They have never successfully convicted any leak recipient who then passed the information along, however, and the Justice Department has never tried to prosecute a journalist —which Mr. Assange portrays himself as being — under either a Republican or a Democratic administration.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html

[nikki2200 4]

Michael Moore

 

You dooshbags will listen to anybody

 

Insightful post Sux. I expect nothing less.

[Drizzay 723]

What if the government WANTS the stuff leaked but pretends it doesn't?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuuuuun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISINFORMATION!

[BLS 314]

I agree with KSB24242424242424 on this. Transparency is good. A free press who looks to expose corruption, fraud and general unfairness is good. Some of the stuff that Wikileaks has posted is outside of the spirit or intent of a free press and into the area of a threat to national security.

 

As far as the rape charges, I think that if we had someone who was willing to dig into the charges a little deeper, expose the truth and find out what really happened, then he might be exonerrated. Oh wait, no one seems to want to do that sort of thing.

 

 

My position exactly. Couldn't have said it any better.

 

Also, the irony.....very good point Pats.

[SUXBNME 1,516]

What if the government WANTS the stuff leaked but pretends it doesn't?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuuuuun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISINFORMATION!

Absolutely.

Doesn't change the fact that Julian Assburger should die, though.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Do you really think terrorists had already compiled such a convenient and obscure list? I personally don't think so.

 

 

 

This is just one of many articles on it. Google is your friend. http://www.presshera...2010-12-07.html

 

As for charging Assange with international crimes, I don't see how they can. And our government is scrambling right now. He didn't steal the documents. He merely printed what was given to him. First Amendment stuff and all of our laws and legal precedents support his right to do so. This is why he has not been brought up on charges. Unless they can prove he actively participated in the theft of the documents, there is nothing to charge him with. And at this point they would also have to go after every media outlet that reprinted the information, which is not going to happen. I don't believe that they are not charging him because what he is doing ain't so bad. It's because they can't. Just like they could not convict anyone during the Pentagon Papers leak in 1971 and why the Bob Woodwards of the world have never been prosecuted for printing classified information. First Amendment.

 

I disagree that he is not dangerous. He's already shown us glimpses that he will publish whatever he can get his hands on. His cause is not a moral crusade to end government corruption. It's about fame and fortune. And again... I fail to see the value in anything he has published to date. What did we learn? Some journalists were accidentally killed by US troops? Like I said earlier... sh!t like this happens during wartime and it's inevitable. And anyone who feels smarter from having the specific details surrounding incidents such as these, had their heads up their asses previously. Do the victims' families now feel better? What did we prove here and how have we all been enlightened?

 

At a minimum he has shown poor judgment. Worst case, he is a narcissistic maniac that will jeopardize people's lives and hide behind the concept of transparency and fighting corruption in order to gain more notoriety and money.

 

Why are my posts so long?

 

Good post. Your post is long because it is well-thought out. These are not positions that can be explained in the space allowed by a bumper sticker. I think you're looking at this guy exactly the right way; you're clearly not a naive person.

[IMMensaMind 462]

What if the government WANTS the stuff leaked but pretends it doesn't?

 

dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuuuuun!

 

MISINFORMATION!

 

I've thought about this angle also, but I think it's just as likely that it is not misinformation, but - rather - another leg in the Obama strategy to unravel much of our foreign policy initiatives over the last 20 years. I wouldn't put it past him whatsoever. I cannot reconcile the thought that if our Government didn't want this information out there, it wouldn't be out there.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

God I hate Michael Moore. I support Assange and think it's B.S. that he is being held on trumped-up charges in an effort to silence Wikileaks, but the fact that Michael Moore also supports him is making me rethink my position. That fat, self-serving P.O.S. could turn anything to sh!t.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

What if the government WANTS the stuff leaked but pretends it doesn't?

 

I suppose that *could* be true as to the cable leaks. After all, the most interesting stuff to come out of those leaks is that many Arab leaders oppose Iran and Ahmenijad (or however the hell you spell his name). That could really help the United States if they should decide to engage Iran head-on.

 

That said, I'm sure that the Powers That Be are not thrilled with the idea of Wikileaks generally. Maybe this particular information dump happens to fit their interests, but whose to say that information leaked in the future won't totally fock them over? Unless they have some sort of direct control over Wikileaks, I'm sure they are very nervous about what Assange will do next.

[HellToupee 1,822]

On 12/15/2010 at 2:32 PM, edjr said:

I have my doubts about the whole sexual assault charges too...

 

ironic this comes out after he exposes the gubment

Seems like you hailed it early on

[edjr 6,608]

42 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Seems like you hailed it early on

did something happen?

[edjr 6,608]

On 12/15/2010 at 2:15 PM, KSB2424 said:

If exposing corruption, fraud, and lies was his only motive I would be behind him too. But it's not. He's going and gone too far. He hates America and has made us, you and me, more vulnerable. Let alone others in the feild. He's published things that have nothing to do with "corruption" and only to do with our National Security. Therefore he's a terrorist. No two ways around it.

always knew ksb was a nazi

[HellToupee 1,822]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

did something happen?

 

1 hour ago, edjr said:

did something happen?