Wikileaks

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by beej

My principal issue with Julian Assange, apart from his self-appointed aribiter status as to what should and what should not be in the public domain, is his suborning of Bradley Manning to treason.

Then your principle objection is invalid. Manning voluntarily and anonymously posted his first information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks is set up in such a fashion that they are a totally passive recipient of the leaks. Otherwise, they would be vulnerable to conspiracy charges.

There is some speculation that Manning and Assange may have later developed a relationship through Wikileaks that resulted in further disclosures but even that would have necessarily been initiated by Manning.

John

[Twodogs]

Originally Posted by merrylander

If the US wants him and only plans on a jail sentence the would extradit him, it is only if they were to go for the death sentence that Sweden would not extradit him.

We could threaten them with taking all Romey's money out of their banks. I bet that would get their attention. Back in the day, both these jerk offs would have been hung by now.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

We could threaten them with taking all Romey's money out of their banks. I bet that would get their attention. Back in the day, both these jerk offs would have been hung by now.

Sweden ain't Switzerland. Definitely no Romney money in the land of Absolut, beautiful Svenka flickas and a safety net that would gag any repub and a commensurate tax rate that would blow your mind Jay...

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Sweden ain't Switzerland. Definitely no Romney money in the land of Absolut, beautiful Svenka flickas and a safety net that would gag any repub and a commensurate tax rate that would blow your mind Jay...

And even if it were Romney's is but a drop in the bucket of the Swiss bank account holders. I'm sure the Swiss would laugh at that threat (and equal sure Romney would never dare do such a thing)

[beej]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Then your principle objection is invalid. Manning voluntarily and anonymously posted his first information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks is set up in such a fashion that they are a totally passive recipient of the leaks. Otherwise, they would be vulnerable to conspiracy charges.

There is some speculation that Manning and Assange may have later developed a relationship through Wikileaks that resulted in further disclosures but even that would have necessarily been initiated by Manning.

John

Thanks for your perspective, John. Doesn't change my view of Assange, Manning or the issue but thanks.

And I believe in my original post I used the the word 'principal' as in main not 'principle' as in rule or belief.

[beej]

Originally Posted by finnbow

To your first point, that's what the press does on a regular basis (self-appointed arbiters).

Not a particularly big fan of that either. Assange however seems to be taking to a whole different level.

To the second point, no one here suggested that the Manning's leaks were solely material that should not have been classified. The point being made was that a significant portion of all classified material is over-classified and subsequently available on a routine basis to too many without a need to know (e.g., Bradley Manning).

Actually at times I'm having difficulty understanding what folks are suggesting with respect to both Manning and Assange.

[merrylander]

Manning was simply stupid and Assange is a pompous self important twit. Neither one is a criminal offense but apparently having unprotected sex is in Sweden - if you do the crime then you do the time.

[beej]

Stupid Manning may be but what he did was indeed criminal.

And I realize that this is probably not a particularly popular position to take but we do have laws in this country on how sensitive material is to be classified, protected, disclosed and eventually declassified. There is a process. Flawed? Perhaps, but it is a process. Color me a reactionary ass-bound bureaucrat but I for one don't think it's a particularly good idea to simply yawn when some self-appointed declassification authority gets a wild hair across his or her ass and decides to disclose something that has been classified. Believe it or not, there is a process by which a classification level can be challenged. Oh, I know; can't wait for that. Would take too much time and the government would never respond, don't you know.

Sorry if that was a bit snarky.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by beej

Thanks for your perspective, John. Doesn't change my view of Assange, Manning or the issue but thanks.

I believe it should at least suggest a re-evaluation of the reasons behind those views. Assange didn't really suborn anything unless you believe Wikileaks' mere existence constitutes subornation of treason.

And I believe in my original post I used the the word 'principal' as in main not 'principle' as in rule or belief.

Thank you, as in how arch!

John

[beej]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I believe it should at least suggest a re-evaluation of the reasons behind those views. Assange didn't really suborn anything unless you believe Wikileaks' mere existence constitutes subornation of treason.

As a card carrying self-admitted reactionary ass-bound bureaucrat I never reevaluate my views (when I have any). If it ain't in the regs, it ain't real.

Call this presumption but I find it very difficult to believe that Manning wasn't influenced (perhaps even encouraged) to disclose what he did either directly or indirectly by Assange. I know; no demonstrated or documented direct link. The whole issue just annoys the shit out of me, John. Know what I mean?