WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

Considering that I've done combat deployments, I'm seeing the ramifications invoved with the leaks in a way that's going over your head. Reading your posts, it'd probably take a paradigm shift for you to see the ramifications of releasing secret military related videos out in the open, where our enemies could grab themselves more material to take out of context, and to turn into massive propaganda films.

Of course Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, and others in the military (I think at least one of the joint chiefs of staff) have been quoted that they cannot point to any incident of harm to the troops from any of the Wikileak releases. They could of course be lying but I'm really not sure that they would have the incentive to do so if the idea is to put pressure on Wikileaks.

I agree that we (although you addressed WTF) are coming at this from such vastly different starting points that agreement on these issues is unlikely).

In terms of propaganda there is plenty out there that isn't classified that could be use. But along those lines: Should the abuses at Abu Ghraib have been kept under wraps by the media because they would provide propaganda? Should the media have not reported that the US used waterboarding because it would provide propaganda?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I will say that I've rarely run into someone so intransigent and wrong in their opinions. Most sane people will at least admit there is some room for them to be wrong, but you do not do even that.

You base your whole POV, as far as I can see, on your service and your military orientation. That does not give you a well-rounded view of the world. And you tout your deployments as if they made you an expert, and as if no one else on this board has ever been out of the US.

You would be well advised to recognize several things about this board: (1) most on here are well educated. Some are attorneys, and you show your extreme ignorance of the law when you take them on. (2) A lot of members of this board are well traveled and are familiar not only with other countries, but have lived abroad. Your singular deployment does not make you a world traveler compared to the other members of this board. (3) You made a fool out of yourself when you denigrated and tried to define hornbook law. The lawyers on this board actually know what it is. (4) Yes, there is a long-arm statute. It is used mostly in civil law, and occasionally in criminal law. It does have its limits. For instance the long-arm statutes will not normally let you successfully sue a person who resides in another state if s/he has never done business in the state in which you want to sue. And it certainly will not allow the US to haul someone into the US that has never set foot here.

In the final analysis your arguments are infantile and you have the attitude of a middle schooler. Based on your previous posts, I expect you to try and take this post and tear it apart with more juvenile nonsense. And that's fine, because the only person you embarrass is yourself.

CT, your last post may be the single most intelligent post in the history of the board. Spot on.

You gentlemen have the patience of saints. I, myself, have concluded that someone thinks that the Internets are in actual tangible locations (aside from the servers). Evidently has knows nothing of hacking and proxies. Lol.

He probably thinks that we should have Internet access like China or something. Geez.

CT, your last post may be the single most intelligent post in the history of the board. Spot on. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

TY. [But instead of beer, I propose a fine wine.]

To maintain that Assange is just an innocent "journalist" who has protections under freedoms of the press is being ignorant of some facts. Most notably his Afghanistan Diaries" dump in which he published the technology that will defeat WarLock.

Warlock is the US Military's electronic defense against IEDs. And it can be defeated by electronic means which Assange dissimenated.

Assange is a terrorist and threat to the US. He should be dealt with accordingly.

Assange is a terrorist and threat to the US. He should be dealt with accordingly. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Even if this were true, which I do not subscribe to, it is hard to determine what kind of legal action, if any, can be taken.

Unless, of course, you are proposing some kind of black ops or vigilante action to "take him out" (as another post recommended) which seems illegal in itself.

The legal action is an indictment and then extradition. It is simple and done all the time on international cases.

Of course the poisioned umbrella tip also works.

Assange isn't a US citizen so covert/special ops against him are alot easier (legally). Treat him just like the many Al Queda terrorists we are seeking and destroying.

The legal action is an indictment and then extradition. It is simple and done all the time on international cases.

Of course the poisioned umbrella tip also works.

Assange isn't a US citizen so covert/special ops against him are alot easier (legally). Treat him just like the many Al Queda terrorists we are seeking and destroying. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So, you would convict and impose the death penalty prior to trial. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" must not have a place in the law for you. If you are a US citizen, I am ashamed of the education you received.

As far as indictment and extradition is concerned: I think the consensus is that under the circumstances, it will be nearly impossible.

Traditionally, you don't have trials on a battlefield. You just kill the other bastards before they kill you.

The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" must not have a place in the law for you. If you are a US citizen, I am ashamed of the education you received.

As far as indictment and extradition is concerned: I think the consensus is that under the circumstances, it will be nearly impossible. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

"Iinnocent until proven guilty" is a joke in war against people who are tyring to kill/harm us. Although, I understand some in the Obama camp want to mirandize the enemy combatants and haul them into our court system - a dangerous policy IMO.

I'll buy into your "innocent until proven guilty" fidelity when the pro abortion advocates start mirandizing the un-born, giving them court appointed attorney's, a trial by jury, and rights to appeal, before their death sentence.

"Iinnocent until proven guilty" is a joke in war against people who are tyring to kill/harm us. Although, I understand some in the Obama camp want to mirandize the enemy combatants and haul them into our court system - a dangerous policy IMO.

I'll buy into your "innocent until proven guilty" fidelity when the pro abortion advocates start mirandizing the un-born, giving them court appointed attorney's, a trial by jury, and rights to appeal, before their death sentence. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I see you've trashed the Constitution. With that kind of logic, you'd kill everyone you think is a murderer (US citizen or not) w/o benefit of due process. As faulty as our system is, yours is worse. It's the "I'll kill who I want" kind of politics that Saddam Hussein was so infamous for.

The only thing that makes our system so valuable is our insistence in extending it to those we don't think really deserve it. My SO doesn't lose it over presumed "terrorists," but give her a case of a man who rapes a 5 yo, and she goes nuts. But still, on some level, she sticks to the rule of law.

If we waive that for others, we run the risk of having it waived against us. And in some cases, the Constitution is our only protection.

Wow in the space of 2 threads we have the chance (if we want to take it) to debate NPOA and abortion. Can this week get any better?

Wow in the space of 2 threads we have the chance (if we want to take it) to debate NPOA and abortion. Can this week get any better? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yep. A cornerstone of the health care law has been found unconstitutional, subject to the inevitable appeal.

Of course, I disagree with the VA court that did so, but you asked for what could make the week better? Like pouring gasoline on a small fire.

Wow in the space of 2 threads we have the chance (if we want to take it) to debate NPOA and abortion. Can this week get any better? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yep. A cornerstone of the health care law has been found unconstitutional, subject to the inevitable appeal.

Of course, I disagree with the VA court that did so, but you asked for what could make the week better? Like pouring gasoline on a small fire. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Plus Lily is back and Lauren has been posting. (I'm surprised SR Only didn't post this first lol)

Now all we need is to see PJ's latest version of the HDH List and Christmas will have come early.