Call the plumber, we have a leak.
Of course if you call the government for a plumber it would cost more than usual and would add on to the national debt only to make the middle class pay some special socialist tax to cover it.
Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
Treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Spy: An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
Hero: a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his/her brave deeds and noble qualities.
Terrorist: One who engages in the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
And now that you have all the necessary definitions here are the results of last month's poll: What do you think about Wikileaks creator?
- (64%) International Terrorist
- (17%) Who cares
- (11%) International Hero
- (5%) Other
A man, Julian Assange from Australia, had been telling secrets on his website called Wikileaks. But the question that needs to be answered is why is he doing this. Some information claims he is doing this to make governments open up and be more trustworthy. Some think he is doing it to promote freedom of speech. But some of the secrets he is letting out is not about trustworthiness but national security. And freedom of speech should have limitations, e.g., derogatory words, harmful situations to innocent people. In Australia he grew up as one of those jerks who try and hack into computer programs. Then later on in life he became a computer programmer himself. This tells us a thing or two about him. First of all he doesn't care about human life. Hackers think they are out there hurting governments or rich industrialists and capitalists such as Bill Gates. But in the end, it's the little guy who gets hurt. The CEO of any business can afford changes in their lifestyle and companies but the average person if their computer gets hacked into has to pay for it and probably can't afford to keep getting new stuff. There is a name for these hackers; mulus gluteus maximus. And Julian is the biggest. Secondly, he doesn't care about people in general. The charges he is originally being arrested for by Sweden is rape. He, of course, has denied it but he has been on the run and living in many countries over the years, so apparently he himself has something to hide.
If you look at the definitions the US can not get him for treason, although it may be said he is giving aid to the enemy. Since he is not an American citizen we can not try him as a traitor, although Australia can for some of the things he has done to them. But he sure fits the description for treason when it says "aids the enemy". And since he is not a US citizen but does fit the description of a traitor, it means we could call him a spy. Spies who are caught deserve the same punishment as treason. Both are despicable and threaten the security of the average citizen. He is no way shape or form fits the description of a hero. What noble qualities does he hold? What brave thing has he done? As soon as he posts things, he goes into hiding. So for those who said he was an international hero need to educate themselves. For those who say they don't care, you should feel ashamed because if he hurts one innocent person then her hurt two too many. If the memos found were just about leaders calling each other names, then who cares. But if he lets out secret missions or the whereabouts of troops, a la Geraldo, 1991, then we all need to care.
The worse part of this is not that one man has done this but that many copy cats will now try and do the same thing. Each one will push the limit farther to where eventually no one will be safe. It will start a new trend that will not stop because the Internet is an easy way to hide behind your true identity and no one can really be caught for what they say and will feel no accountability.
If he feels like he is encouraging freedom of speech or the press then he has to understand that with these come responsibility and duty to stick to the truth and to protect the innocent. He has not this. He is an international terrorist and should be tried as one.
If he feels like he is encouraging freedom of speech or the press then he has to understand that with these come responsibility and duty to stick to the truth and to protect the innocent. He has not this. He is an international terrorist and should be tried as one.
8 comments:
Fundamentally the problem is not with wikileaks. The problem lies in the apparent lack of control by our government of confidential documents. I perceive that attention to secruity is not being given in the government offices. Someone was terribly lax in giving access to the service person being held.
It is just disgusting. Someone a lot further up the chain than the lowly soldier needs to be held accountable. He is responsible; but those giving and granting access are responsible as well. A soldier sitting at a desk calls up thousands upon thousands of classified documents and there isn't even a red flag raised questioning his need to know.
Ridiculous.
Two things that you neglect to mention is that firstly these were not confidential documents, they were accessible by a huge number of people and that he never posts anything on wikileaks that would be considered illegal or damaging. for example in the last document dump whole pages were sometimes blacked out in order as not to compromise your national security. secondly the man is primarily a journalist, and actually in my opinion not a very good one, who hasn't really published anything more shocking than "USA's boringly contemptuous foreign policy makes unpopular in the middle east." so what exactly would you charge him with? to list definitions of different negative words and then trying to smash assange into them doesn't make him a terrorist.
Even though I'm not a fan as a journalist I think he's really successfully managed to integrate investigative journalism with new mediums, not a common or usually well done thing. Calling for him to spend his days rotting in jail isn't helpful and isn't realistic. If it was where is the investigation? He's clean as a whistle, even in switzerland.
Thanks for commenting Johnathan.
Although they all may not have been confidential, many were private. None of us wants our private business shared with others. I don't care if they mention our leader called another leader a poopy head. But one thing that was leaked (and who even knows if it is true) is that Hilary Clinton spied on the UN. I don't care for her much but she is a diplomat of the US and needs to be protected. As if she already wasn't a target, imagine how much of one she will be now?
If any of these leaks (confidential or not) puts anyone in harm's way and someone gest assassinated, he should be tried at least as an accomplice to murder.
But just as important, he has hacked into government computers. For what purpose?
The main problem I have is that this may prompt others to do the same thing and even perhaps worse. Where does it stop?
I can only describe him as negative. Hero is not an option to me. But I did leave an option for "other". What would you call him?
I would have to wait to see what the real information that he leaked was about before I would charge him. But apparently there is enough, because he fears for his own life now.
Enjoyed your comment. Thanks.
And so it begins...
Now we have others who are coming out with what they have done. But apparently this guy is part of the wikileaks crime wave. Notice, he is an EX-banker. So why is doing all of this? To get even! Not to help anyone but his own gluteus maximus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/01/17/rudolfelmer.profile/index.html?hpt=Mid
"None of us wants our private business shared with others." The US government has a responsibility of transparency and to act within the law. it is against international law to send spies into the UN, clinton knows this and the only way that WE will ever find out about it is through the self sacrifice of those who are willing to put the noses of the establishment out of joint. That is something worth defending. you haven't offered, nor has anyone, of any concrete crime committed by assange because there simply isn't anything that he can be charged with. he'd guilty of nothing other than being an upstanding multinational citizen.
Johnathan,
I can appreciate your opinion.
But of course I can not supply you with concrete evidence, I am not the one who is doing the investigation. I only offer my opinion and what I find from resources that I see/read.
I agree that our government has a repsonsibility to act accordingly to the law. But I also think the media has just as much as responsibility to keep the average citizen safe and every citizen from international harm. Too much of the media only does things to spark controversy. Now, I do not know all the details of what he has done because I personally do not want to give him the time or day and waste my own life reading his junk. My main point about this whole paper is just to say that if any American is hurt because of what he has done then he should be liable. If anyone does this then they are no hero.
I am hoping nothing comes out of this and if he is let go then I hope he learns his lesson. But I fear that what he will do is push the limit until there is no turning back and our nation's security becomes at risk.
Question: is there a point then that it becomes wrong in your eyes? Not trying to "call you out", just a straight up question. How much information should he be allowed to give before it becomes wrong?
I can remember back in 1991 when Geraldo gave away our troops position on live TV. That could have put many of our troops in danger. Well, what if Julian was giving these types of secrets just because he wanted to put noses of the establishment out of joint.
Please don't take it personal. I just don't like the media at all.
And as stated in the paper one of my biggest fears is that others will now pick up where he left off and do worse.
well there simply isn't an active investigation into julian assange's involvement, simply because they know full well his detention and any crimes he could be theoretically convicted of would breach both the constitution and international human rights conventions. simultaneously, as i've said previously, wikileaks and assange himself were careful to edit out or not disclose information that directly put the lives of civilians and soldiers alike at risk, no one who is acting in good conscience can seriously claim that the leaks have put lives at risks or that wikileaks activities have caused a single death. Effectively they're a glorified broadsheet.
Equally your stance on liable is very very dangerous. If we establish, which I believe we have, that assange's actions fall well within the boundaries of the law, how can you then go on to say "but if anyones hurt suddenly his actions become illegal". It's comparable to those who say, for instance in the wake of the muhammed cartoon fiasco, that anyone who says anything to inflame the radical islamic community is responsible for their reprisals. or, more sinisterly, that if I disclose information about public officials and their work, for example the abuse of MPs expenses which was a huge scandal here in the UK last year, that as a journalist or a publisher or even as a whistle-blower inside the house of commons, that I'm DIRECTLY responsible for, not only any harm that may befall that person, but also any damage to the reputation of that person, the latter being the case with a large number of US officials, at least in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Well it's interesting you ask me what the limit is. Ask yourself what has been disclosed so far, information on the US governments illegal activities, diplomatic documents concerning underlying political motives of policy changes, both international and mainland, information concerning the illegal bombing of foreign sovereignties without UN approval, and soon the release of documents concerning illegal activity in banking institutions and internal documents which prove banks lied about the knowledge they had of an impending economic crash (thanks for that btw). Yes, I think all these things are perfectly acceptable disclosure of information that should be readily and transparently available to the public, either openly or upon request. I would say that information of a sensitive nature; ongoing military operations, cabinet meeting minutes (available after 20 years at the moment I think in order to protect the executive), the identities of private citizens, but we both know that it's almost impossible to draw the line because it should almost certainly be judged on a case by case basis, just like wikileaks does.
Johnathan you raise really good points. I hope you are right about him. I hope his website is exactly what you have said. I will never give it any patronage. But if one innocent person or a nation's security gets jeopardized, it will be too late and one too many. I hope they do take all precautions and do this with responsibility and not just for glory or revenge like many media outlets.
BTW, you can thank Bill Clinton and his cohorts for the banks and their fiasco. I had nothing to do with it.
Thanka for all the info you have given us. I respect your opinion.
Post a Comment