The Arrest Of Mr. Julian Assange

[CreepersWiener]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B61PX20101207

Well, Julian finally got arrested (more like he turned himself in). After a mind blowing spree of seminating confidential United States documents over the interwebz, Julian Assange has turned himself in to authorities.

Now, shouldn't the United States military leadership be arrested and shot as well? If this is such a big deal, then the military command that allowed a young private to steal confidential info should be immediately arrested as well.

This is all a CIA stunt being used to whip up support for the oncoming Israeli/Iran war and the newly born Korean Conflict.

Assange has done nothing wrong as a journalist. All info is true and not disputed. Assange was not the one to steal the documents, he is just reporting on them.

Without these documents the American people would never have known who all got bailout money from the Fed.

Although, his arrest is not specifically for espionage against the US, the Swedish arrest warrant is largely debatable whether or not it is politically motivated.

[oVo]

Assange and his Wikileak Group have basically given the World
the facts that Corporate News refuses to report. It's very ironic
that television news reports have shown all the locations of the
"sensitive" sites released recently that embassy documents had
determined might be vulnerable to espionage or terrorist attack.

Most of these documents just verify what most people believe
is going on behind the scenes anyways.

The accusations against Assange "seem to be" trumped up BS,
considering what has been reported previously and how the
authorities originally responded to these allegations.

[nagerous]

The allegations against Julian Assange remind me heavily of the allegations made against Wikus in District 9, AKA complete bs.

[Timminz]

I read an interesting article about the whole fiasco. Made some excellent points about the state of the media in the USA, among other things.

warnings about the dangers from WikiLeaks are "significantly overwrought" and the impact on foreign policy: "fairly modest." So it appears that the political class and its eager enablers in the media world and foreign policy community have -- as usual -- severely exaggerated national security threats in order to manipulate the public and its emotional reactions. Shocking, I know.

[saxitoxin]

The quote of the day below. Moments after Assange was arrested, Obama's Secretary of Defense told reporters he was thrilled "we got him!" (By "we" I assume he's referencing the U.S. and the fake country at the end of the marionette strings being pulled in the Oval Office, known to some as "Sweden.") Moments after that, another one of Obama's henchmen made a statement saying how Obama would be celebrating World Press Freedom Day:

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC. The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. We are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/201 ... ve-updates

Meanwhile, Amazon has shut-down WikiLeaks clouds servers after requests by the U.S. government, PayPal has suspended their accounts after requests from the U.S. government, Visa and MasterCard are shutting-off payments to WikiLeaks (Vice-President Biden used to be known as "the Senator from MasterCard" due to the millions in funding that company gave him), Obama's Attorney-General is launching a criminal probe into WikiLeaks, Obama's Ambassador in Switzerland just made a not-so-veiled threat against that country and the senior Democrat senator Joe Lieberman is calling on police to raid the New York Times and shut it down.

The Iron Heel is removing its mask.

[Juan_Bottom]

At least one of the woman has come forward anonymously now to say that she doesn't want him arrested. All sex was consensual she says. lol

[MeDeFe]

At least one of the woman has come forward anonymously now to say that she doesn't want him arrested. All sex was consensual she says. lol

Source? That's news to me.


I think what's going on atm is less of a reaction against the latest leak, and more an attempt to shut Wikileaks down by making it so they factually cannot receive any donations before they leak the inside information from a large US bank that was announced as their next project. The cables are interesting, certainly, some of them are quite illuminating and should make more than one MP of more than one country reconsider whether they really want to pass certain laws or not, but in all they're more of a nuisance than a threat. A good look at the inside workings of the worldwide and especially the US branch of the financial system, however, could get a lot of powerful people into real trouble. Unlike as with a certain French banking institute not too long ago, sacrificing a pawn may not be enough.

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40551118/ns ... _security/

You're not going to believe this, but the story here changed, and now it says nothing about the woman coming forward to say she was never threatened by him and that she wanted the charges dropped. Erm... wtf? All I did was follow my browser history back to the page but this isn't the same article. The woman's names aren't hidden anymore either. They're all over the web now.

Welcome back MeDeFe.

EDIT:
Never mind, they just updated but left the links I suppose.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697/ns ... _security/

'He is not violent'
One of the women involved in the sexual abuse allegations told Aftonbladet that she had voluntary relations with him and had never wanted him to be charged with rape, the Guardian said.

"He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him," she said — anonymously — according to the paper.

Despite Assange's legal troubles, a WikiLeaks spokesman insisted the flow of secret U.S. diplomatic cables would not be affected. He also downplayed efforts to constrict the group's finances after both Visa and MasterCard cut off key funding methods Tuesday.

[radiojake]

The quote of the day below. Moments after Assange was arrested, Obama's Secretary of Defense told reporters he was thrilled "we got him!" (By "we" I assume he's referencing the U.S. and the fake country at the end of the marionette strings being pulled in the Oval Office, known to some as "Sweden.") Moments after that, another one of Obama's henchmen made a statement saying how Obama would be celebrating World Press Freedom Day:

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC. The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. We are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/201 ... ve-updates

Is this the definition of irony?

[maasman]

I think the best thing about all of this is that the true nature of the US government will come to light.

[HapSmo19]

I think the best thing about all of this is that the true nature of the US government will come to light.

Just what are you hoping that truth will be and are there any other governments you'd like to see the truth come out about?

[HapSmo19]

The quote of the day below. Moments after Assange was arrested, Obama's Secretary of Defense told reporters he was thrilled "we got him!" (By "we" I assume he's referencing the U.S. and the fake country at the end of the marionette strings being pulled in the Oval Office, known to some as "Sweden.") Moments after that, another one of Obama's henchmen made a statement saying how Obama would be celebrating World Press Freedom Day:

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC. The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. We are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/201 ... ve-updates

Meanwhile, Amazon has shut-down WikiLeaks clouds servers after requests by the U.S. government, PayPal has suspended their accounts after requests from the U.S. government, Visa and MasterCard are shutting-off payments to WikiLeaks (Vice-President Biden used to be known as "the Senator from MasterCard" due to the millions in funding that company gave him), Obama's Attorney-General is launching a criminal probe into WikiLeaks, Obama's Ambassador in Switzerland just made a not-so-veiled threat against that country and the senior Democrat senator Joe Lieberman is calling on police to raid the New York Times and shut it down.

The Iron Heel is removing its mask.

FCC push to regulate news draws fire

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... draws-fire

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) pushed back on Monday against a contention by a Democratic FCC commissioner that the government should create new regulations to promote diversity in news programming.
Barton was reacting to a proposal made last week by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who in a speech suggested that broadcasters be subject to a new "public values test" every four years.
"I hope … that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the [FCC], to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume,” Barton wrote Monday in a letter to Copps.
Copps had suggested that the test would make a broadcaster's license renewal contingent upon proof that they meet a prospective set of federal criteria.
He said outlets should be mandated to do the following: prove they have made a meaningful commitment to public affairs and news programming, prove they are committed to diversity programming (for instance, by showing that they depict women and minorities), report more to the government about which shows they plan to air, require greater disclosure about who funds political ads and devote 25 percent of their prime-time coverage to local news.
The regulations would apply to all news outlets operating on the public airwaves.
In his letter, Barton questioned whether Copps believes the government should reinstate the defunct Fairness Doctrine, a controversial standard that required broadcast licensees to offer "balanced" coverage. Critics saw it as an affront to free speech.
Barton also asked whether "five commissioners can do a better job of ensuring that Americans have access to a wide diversity of content and viewpoints than Americans can themselves by expressing their preferences ... in the vigorously competitive marketplace."
The Federal Communications Commission has an ongoing project about media diversity that promises to issue a report on whether Americans have access to adequate sources of news, but the effort has come under strong criticism and the FCC has not stated when the report will be released.

[Phatscotty]

Were there any documents that made the USA look good? A single one? if anyone knows please bring to light

[jcalebmoore]

I think there is a pretty stark difference between what is considered freedom of the press, and what might be considered outright acts of sedition. To my knowledge, no body anywhere, has ever in any way tried to qualify Wikileaks as a legitimate news source. Assange's assertions in interviews that he was trying to cause upheaval against the U.S. government and create discontent, seems to fall well within the definition of sedition. Here's the definition of sedition:

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

Here's freedom of the press:

Freedom of the press is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest.

Objectively it seems pretty obvious which is more applicable in this case to me. That said, the U.S. has not charged Mr. Assange with sedition to my knowledge. Why it would manipulate Sweden into drumming up false charges against the man when a charge of sedition is clearly a reasonable one, is beyond me.

[BigBallinStalin]

The US govt is building a case with different accusations for him in the US courts. The Sweden case, in my opinion, is to get the ball rolling towards holding a trial against him in the US.

From London, we'll find out this Tuesday what's to become of him.

[CreepersWiener]

I think there is a pretty stark difference between what is considered freedom of the press, and what might be considered outright acts of sedition. To my knowledge, no body anywhere, has ever in any way tried to qualify Wikileaks as a legitimate news source. Assange's assertions in interviews that he was trying to cause upheaval against the U.S. government and create discontent, seems to fall well within the definition of sedition.

Do you have these interviews? I have not heard anything about Assange wanting to destroy the United States. He does say that he thinks it is a good thing to provide true information to shed light on the true nature of this war. Why is that such a bad thing? The same thing was done in the Vietnam war as far as an individual leaking info about the Gulf of Tonkin being a false flag op? Why do you want to be left in the dark? Why do you want to be lied to? What's the point? Don't we have the right to know the truth?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E5nrTRHSck

[MeDeFe]

I think there is a pretty stark difference between what is considered freedom of the press, and what might be considered outright acts of sedition. To my knowledge, no body anywhere, has ever in any way tried to qualify Wikileaks as a legitimate news source. Assange's assertions in interviews that he was trying to cause upheaval against the U.S. government and create discontent, seems to fall well within the definition of sedition. Here's the definition of sedition:

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

Here's freedom of the press:

Freedom of the press is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest.

Objectively it seems pretty obvious which is more applicable in this case to me. That said, the U.S. has not charged Mr. Assange with sedition to my knowledge. Why it would manipulate Sweden into drumming up false charges against the man when a charge of sedition is clearly a reasonable one, is beyond me.

Julian Assange is NOT a US citizen. He cannot, by definition, commit treason against the USA. So I assume your last sentence is sarcasm and you really mean that Wikileaks is protected by the freedom of press on account of providing source material to more traditional news outlets as well as for individuals who want to know what their government is up to, as is their basic right.

[maasman]

I think the best thing about all of this is that the true nature of the US government will come to light.

Just what are you hoping that truth will be and are there any other governments you'd like to see the truth come out about?

Not truth necessarily, but world leader's attitudes/actions. The handling of this situation will go miles in seeing what these people really think and what they'll do when their dirty laundry is hanging out for all to see.

[saxitoxin]

Objectively it seems pretty obvious which is more applicable in this case to me. That said, the U.S. has not charged Mr. Assange with sedition to my knowledge. Why it would manipulate Sweden into drumming up false charges against the man when a charge of sedition is clearly a reasonable one, is beyond me.

Here are the Anti-Subversion laws as they're written in the United States Code. I'm curious which you think Assange has violated?

Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Advocating Overthrow
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Activities Affecting Armed Forces
Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Recruiting for Service Against the United States
Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in armed hostility against the same; or
Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting station for the enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in armed hostility against the United States— shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The Posse Comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution, willfully deploys any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Photographing / Drawing Defense Installations
Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary. Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

THIS IS WHAT I WOULD CHARGE HIM WITH ...

Unauthorized Use of Likeness of Smokey Bear
Whoever, except as authorized under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Association of State Foresters, knowingly and for profit manufactures, reproduces, or uses the character “Smokey Bear”, originated by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Association of State Foresters for use in public information concerning the prevention of forest fires, or any facsimile thereof, or the name “Smokey Bear” shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod ... -000-.html

Use of the Coat-of-Arms of Switzerland
Whoever, whether a corporation, partnership, unincorporated company, association, or person within the United States, willfully uses as a trade mark, commercial label, or portion thereof, or as an advertisement or insignia for any business or organization or for any trade or commercial purpose, the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation, consisting of an upright white cross with equal arms and lines on a red ground, or any simulation thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod ... -000-.html

Unauthorized Wearing of Uniform of a Friendly Nation with Intent to Deceive or Mislead
Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, with intent to deceive or mislead, wears any naval, military, police, or other official uniform, decoration, or regalia of any foreign state, nation, or government with which the United States is at peace, or anything so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Troops at Polls
Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.

Diplomatic Correspondence Whoever, by virtue of his employment by the United States, obtains from another or has or has had custody of or access to, any official diplomatic code or any matter prepared in any such code, or which purports to have been prepared in any such code, and without authorization or competent authority, willfully publishes or furnishes to another any such code or matter, or any matter which was obtained while in the process of transmission between any foreign government and its diplomatic mission in the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[Pedronicus]

Two days in the life of Westminster Magistrates' Court:


Tuesday, 7th December 2010

Julian Assange
Age: 39
Arrested on a Swedish extradition warrant
Alleged offence: Rape
Deemed a 'flight risk' and remanded in custody until 14th December

Julian Assange denied bail over sexual assault allegations

Wednesday, 8th December 2010

Shrien Dewani
Age: 30
Arrested on a South African extradition warrant
Alleged offence: Murder
£250,000 bail granted

Honeymoon murder husband faces appeal against bail

[BigBallinStalin]

I think there is a pretty stark difference between what is considered freedom of the press, and what might be considered outright acts of sedition. To my knowledge, no body anywhere, has ever in any way tried to qualify Wikileaks as a legitimate news source. Assange's assertions in interviews that he was trying to cause upheaval against the U.S. government and create discontent, seems to fall well within the definition of sedition.

Do you have these interviews? I have not heard anything about Assange wanting to destroy the United States. He does say that he thinks it is a good thing to provide true information to shed light on the true nature of this war. Why is that such a bad thing? The same thing was done in the Vietnam war as far as an individual leaking info about the Gulf of Tonkin being a false flag op? Why do you want to be left in the dark? Why do you want to be lied to? What's the point? Don't we have the right to know the truth?

It makes the US look bad.

Sure, 20-30 years after the fact and after much pleading, begging, and wheeling and dealing--unless that information is deemed to be too sensitive.

[Pedronicus]

Julian Assange should be awarded Nobel peace prize, suggests Russia

You've got to hand it to those cheeky Ruskies!

[thegreekdog]

Apparently the hackers are doing their thing today in protest. I'm unbelievably fascinated by this whole thing.

[alex951]

does anyone know where to find the all the cables?

[jcalebmoore]

Here's one of the interviews I've found in which I take issue with some of Assange's phraseology in a defense involving freedom of the press. http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2 ... assange/3/ Saying things involving the hope of Wikileaks to "take down" organizations and classifying the U.S. government as a "victim" of their posts, doesn't exactly vibe with my understanding of objective journalism.

In response to the question about which part of U.S. code regarding sedition Assange may have violated...

Here are the Anti-Subversion laws as they're written in the United States Code. I'm curious which you think Assange has violated?

Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, o[b]r by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereo[/b]f, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I think they're in for a two-fer of seditious conspiracy. I do believe they are willfully hoping to disrupt the execution of the law of the United States by undermining its ability to operate properly. Further, I believe that in providing would-be hackers and information thieves with a conduit for their stolen information and trying to justify the stealing of said information as somehow appropriate or even magnanimous, they are colluding with those people in seizing the rightful property of the United States. While it may be argued that qualifying intelligence information as 'property' is a bit of a stretch, I don't believe it is any more so than the implied stretch in trying to qualify this as 'freedom of the press'.

Why is that such a bad thing? The same thing was done in the Vietnam war as far as an individual leaking info about the Gulf of Tonkin being a false flag op? Why do you want to be left in the dark? Why do you want to be lied to? What's the point? Don't we have the right to know the truth?

'Truth' can be a tricky nut to crack, and I have very serious issues with their representation of the 'truth'. The wholesale publishing of information seems to lack a complete understanding of the importance of editorial control in publishing 'truth'. The fact that no context is given for the information, is particularly troubling. For example, if I show you someone's twitter feed in which they threaten to blow up an airport, you might have a very different understanding of that information if you don't understand the context in which it is explained that he is planning a vacation and is annoyed that the airport is closed. A quote from journalists without borders about wikileaks 'journalism' seems to sum it up well: "indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that WikiLeaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing."

Lastly, at some point I feel that many of the people that are defending this guy are the same people who believe there should be some implied right to privacy for the citizenry. The wholesale publishing of random information seems to violate that to me. W Don't diplomats and military personnel have some right to privacy with their work emails? I certainly would feel that my right to privacy had been impinged on if all of my work emails were published for the world to peruse. While the defense can be made that most of the publication has reflected the work information of those involved in government service, and therefore there is no implied right to privacy, I'm somewhat inclined to disagree. I further believe that the methodology of Wikileaks presents a very real threat to the right to privacy. According to the interview I've posted, the next 'target' of Wikileaks will be a U.S. bank. Do you believe their lack of editorial process will have the oversight to not publish personal information about the banking records of regular U.S. citizens? Do you think its appropriate to publish the mortgage payment history of a fifth of the population? I guess I'd like to believe that my government would try to intervene.

Finally, the definition of Freedom of the Press, highlights the ability of the government to classify information as secret or sensitive, and therefore not appropriate for use in public discourse. Wikileaks has clearly violated these terms so I see no defense based on Freedom of the Press unless there is disagreement with the stated definition.

Sorry, that got long. I will summarize... O'doyle rules. Assange sucks.