U.S. refuses to recognize diplomatic asylum of WikiLeaks founder

Originally posted by DethDriver
I'm very torn as to what should happen to Assange because it comes down to how you look at the cables being leaked. The way I'm looking at it is that it goes without saying that there are certain things the general public shouldn't know about their Government, and there are certain things countries shouldn't know about other ones. It's the nature of the beast, and embarrassment may have something to do with it, but there are greater things at stake.

As far as the US is concerned, this isn't the days of George Washington & Thomas Jefferson with that 'government is best which governs least'; mentality. I wish it were, but that's changed now and this is where we're at. Nations must have secrets to a certain extent. It is necessary for a number reasons, some of which are obvious and for others not so much. Assange seems like an intelligent person, and he knew what he was doing and now he got his ass in a jam because of it. Some are going to try to turn this guy into a martyr for all the wrong reasons.

Personally I don't feel sorry for him because it's not like he got fooled into it. This goes beyond the realm of "free speech", what was leaked has International implications, there is a difference between wanting to 'expose the man' and irresponsibility. Okay, we have the right to freedom of speech, but nowhere does it say that we are free from the consequences that come along with that freedom.

This is a fine example.

edit on 19-8-2012 by DethDriver because: coding error

There is a difference between secrets that protect a nation and it's allies(troop locations, equipment, military plans, technology, agent's and their missions/locations) from their enemies, and secrets created to protect a nations leadership from their citizenry.

Now what did Assange leak? What kind of secrets? By and large they where the bad type of secrets, things that never should of been made secret in the first place. I could sympathize with people like you, but people like you don't seem to mind when the Democrats hand Communist nations nuclear technology, stealth technology and other military secrets. Or when Neo Conservatives leak information on undercover agents.

I think its funny that the US says they refuse to acknowledge his Ecuadorian asylum, who cares if they acknowledge it at all. Either they are going to have to break in the door and take him by force thus creating conflict, or they are just going to have to stuff it. All this posturing is asinine. Ive seen better fights between my teenagers than all this rhetoric being pushed out. Fact is Ecuador said hey you can come stay with us. End of story. If you go in an take him well that's wholly another story then. Personally I like Julian and im glad Ecuador had the balls to stand up and say they'd take him in.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

That is Bradley Manning.

You are wrong on that one, I know a member of his family.........................care to go on?????

Do not play the try to discredit me game.

edit on 19-8-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)

No its not Bradly Manning.. Its Kenneth Bradley Manning and they are not the same person.

I provided a few links to support the fact its not bradley manning and it IS kenneth bradley manning.

So no, Manning was not beaten nor was he tortured.

reply to post by korathin



The OAS is just a group that represents North Central and South American countries so there is nothing really to be kicked from.

The refusal to recognize Excquadors position is based on the treaty Ecquador used - 1954 OAS asylum. In addition to the US, Canada and a byunch oif other countries in North Central South America are not signatories to that treaty. They are however signatories to the 61 diplomatic accords rom the UN.

Julian Assange Threatened To Sue Guardian For Publishing WikiLeaks Cables: Vanity Fair

The Man Who Spilled the Secrets

On the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks.org, marched with his lawyer into the London office of Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based on the quarter of a million documents that he had handed over to The Guardian just three months earlier.

So he is all about releasing classified information because there should be no secrets, except when it comes to Assange and his megalomania.

Lets continue down this road and see where it leads -

In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience.

Hmmm.. Something Assange preaches against on a daily basis again except when it comes to him, and then the standards change for his own benefit.

Lets keep going -

He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission.

So Assange is preaching openess and disclosure, to hold be accountible, again except when it comes to himself. For assange to make the statements he did in his latest media encounter while at the same time he is breaking those very words he accuses others of doing.

The Guardian had the files leaked to them yet Assange makes demands....

Lets see just how out of touch Assange is -

Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.

Now wait a minute.. Assange claims the information belongs to him and that he had a financial interest in them. The very position the US government used, that the documents belonged to them and Assange cannot publish them. A point Assange ignored because he has some higher moral authority and the laws dont apply to him.

Ironic...

Lets stick to the FACTS of the case, and not be derailed by IRRELEVANT factors such as character assasinations.

1. Assange was required for questioning by the Swedish authorities, had not been charged by a court as a felon.

2. He had not ran away, but made himself avaliable, even with Ecuadorain CONSULAR assistance to the Swedish authorities to question him, yet the swedes refused.

3. He had published secret cables, and may be wanted by US for a breach of US national security laws. However, he only behaved just like any other full time salaried reporter, whom had sworn to publish facts. If telling the truth is treason, then may USA and the world start serving justice by hanging every journalist on Earth or inform all citizens that journalists are to be nation's propaganda mouthpieces such as those in Iran, Syria,China and Russia.

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
reply to post by ofhumandescent

 

Surely he gets what he deserves - it is treason at the end of the day.

And lying to the public who pays the government's salaries isn't?

Originally posted by UDHR19

Originally posted by youwillneverknow
reply to post by ofhumandescent

 

Surely he gets what he deserves - it is treason at the end of the day.

And lying to the public who pays the government's salaries isn't?

For starters peope in government are also tax paying citizens.
As for lying to the public dont try and claim the moral highground. Assange and his lawyers have done their fair share of lying as well throughout this drama.