Wikileaks and Julian Assange

[Chris81]

He has made information public that can directly lead to death to American troops and destruction of American interests.

I have heard this claim quite a lot by those who desire to silence Assange.

I am curious to know what exact information did he leak that will lead to the deaths of American troops? Do we have any verifiable evidence that any troops have been killed as a result of information that Wikileaks has published? If so please name the individuals who were directly killed as a result of information published by Wikileaks.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

As for number 1: Hair-splitting!
Yes, he was Australian, NOT American, so it is NOT treason. And my question remains: Should anyone revealing sensitive information be given to the country whose information they revealed to be tried and executed?

If not, why only people who reveal information about US' misdeeds? Why is it so bad that WikiLeaks has provided inforamtion which gives us - the public - insight into the deceits and treachery of those who would govern us? Surely the leaders should be held accountable to the people whom they govern?

You call 1 "hairsplitting". I call it accuracy.

To answer your question, yes, anyone revealing sensitive American information should be handed over to America to be given a FAIR trial, then executed.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

I have heard this claim quite a lot by those who desire to silence Assange.

I am curious to know what exact information did he leak that will lead to the deaths of American troops? Do we have any verifiable evidence that any troops have been killed as a result of information that Wikileaks has published? If so please name the individuals who were directly killed as a result of information published by Wikileaks.

Military inteligence doesn't really work like that.

But here are at least 2 contenders.

Sergeant Seo Jeong-wu and Private First Class Moon Gwang-wuk

 

[Anonymous man]

You call 1 "hairsplitting". I call it accuracy.

To answer your question, yes, anyone revealing sensitive American information should be handed over to America to be given a FAIR trial, then executed.

So, if an American reveals sensitive - say - French information he should be sent to France, given a FAIR trial, then executed?

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

So, if an American reveals sensitive - say - French information he should be sent to France, given a FAIR trial, then executed?

Of course not. Americans aren't subject to French law, nor is it reasonable to expect an American to recieve a fair trial from the American hating French.

 

[David Brider]

The endangerment of American lives, assets and interests isn't enough for you?

It's not a question of whether something's "enough for me" or not. It's a question of - as others have pointed out - Mr. Assange being Australian, and therefore not capable of committing treason against America.

David.

 

[David Brider]

So, if an American reveals sensitive - say - French information he should be sent to France, given a FAIR trial, then executed?

Does France still have the death penalty? I know the UK doesn't any more.

David.

 

[Anonymous man]

Of course not. Americans aren't subject to French law, nor is it reasonable to expect an American to recieve a fair trial from the American hating French.

So, you think that an Australian who is not subject to American law should be tried and executed for breaking American law. But an American who is not subject to French or Australian law should not be subject to the same if he should choose to break their laws?

This is extremely hypocritical Hans.

 

[Anonymous man]

Does France still have the death penalty? I know the UK doesn't any more.

David.

I don't think they do. The US and Japan are the only ones in "the west" who do I believe. It was just a hypothetical example. For the sake of argument let's say they do.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

So, you think that an Australian who is not subject to American law should be tried and executed for breaking American law. But an American who is not subject to French or Australian law should not be subject to the same if he should choose to break their laws?

This is extremely hypocritical Hans.

No its not. Dealing in American secrets makes you subject to American law.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

It's not a question of whether something's "enough for me" or not. It's a question of - as others have pointed out - Mr. Assange being Australian, and therefore not capable of committing treason against America.

David.

If he commits treason against America, then he is capable of it. Providing national secrets to foreign powers is treason, the rest just QEDs into place.

 

[Anonymous man]

If he commits treason against America, then he is capable of it. Providing national secrets to foreign powers is treason, the rest just QEDs into place.

Treason according to dictionary . com:

trea·son   
[tree-zuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Use treason in a Sentence
Origin:
1175&#8211;1225; ME tre ( i ) so ( u ) n < AF; OF traïson < L tr&#257;diti&#333;n- (s. of tr&#257;diti&#333; ) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition

&#8212;Related forms
su·per·trea·son, noun

&#8212;Synonyms
1. T reason , sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. T reason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. S edition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty

Assange is Australian. The USA is not his country. Hence, NOT treason. Q.E.D.

 

[Staccato]

Tell it to William Wallace.

Build me a time machine and I may do just that. But here in the 21st century, we are supposed to be slightly more judicious in our application of labels such as 'traitor'.

All you've shown here is that, on this issue, you have the same mentality as a 13/14th century despot. Well done.

 

[Staccato]

Of course not. Americans aren't subject to French law, nor is it reasonable to expect an American to recieve a fair trial from the American hating French.

No its not. Dealing in American secrets makes you subject to American law.

Are you perchance trolling, good sir?

 

[Chris81]

Military inteligence doesn't really work like that.

So in other words these accusations are purely based on speculation.

But here are at least 2 contenders.

Sergeant Seo Jeong-wu and Private First Class Moon Gwang-wuk

Those aren't even American soldiers!

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Military inteligence doesn't really work like that.

But here are at least 2 contenders.

Sergeant Seo Jeong-wu and Private First Class Moon Gwang-wuk

Come again? These two are South Korean soldiers who were killed in the North Korean artillery attack last month. How is that Wikileaks' fault?

 

[yantski]

Isn't supplying state secrets to a foreign power pretty much the text book example of treason? Think Rosenberg.

Or are you one of those who believe America has no right to prosecute terrorists who aren't American citizens?

A couple of things in this post goad me into responding.

One: Let's split hairs here for a minute - when you say "secrets", do you mean the kind that could cause an enemy force to gain an advantage in an armed conflict - or do you mean the kind that just make it look like you are trigger happy killers out on a hunt? (check out Collateral Murder on Youtube - the 39 minute one if possible)

Two: The term terrorist should be reserved for people using covert forms of attack (usually on helpless non-combantant victims) to create fear - not as the word of the day to decribe an "enemy" or person or group who goes against one's systems, beliefs or ideologies. And it sure shouldn't be used to describe an individual who exposes lies and deciet in the name of social justice.

But then again maybe I've got it all wrong.

 

[yantski]

I've just been browsing the threads for today and see a trend of retorts toward the seemingly narrowminded Hans. Hans, my advice to you would be to quit digging and just lay down the shovel and walk away!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No its not. Dealing in American secrets makes you subject to American law.

No one likes double-standards.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

A couple of things in this post goad me into responding.

One: Let's split hairs here for a minute - when you say "secrets", do you mean the kind that could cause an enemy force to gain an advantage in an armed conflict - or do you mean the kind that just make it look like you are trigger happy killers out on a hunt? (check out Collateral Murder on Youtube - the 39 minute one if possible)

Two: The term terrorist should be reserved for people using covert forms of attack (usually on helpless non-combantant victims) to create fear - not as the word of the day to decribe an "enemy" or person or group who goes against one's systems, beliefs or ideologies. And it sure shouldn't be used to describe an individual who exposes lies and deciet in the name of social justice.

But then again maybe I've got it all wrong.

Yes, you've got it all wrong. The "collateral murder" video, as you call it, is another prime example of wikileaks endangering our soldier's lives. Stripped of all context and quote mined every which way, that video can be spun to look as though american soldiers are deliberately attempting to harm non-combatants, which directly supports terrorist recruitment and propaganda, not to mention makes the individual soldiers in the film, and worse, their families, obvious targets for wrongful retribution.