• US has pressured Britain, Germany, Australia, to charge WikiLeaks editor with espionage
    371 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Communist Cake;23962630]In my opinion, this stuff shouldn't be leaked during a war. After a war, when it can't cause any harm, than it should be leaked, but during, when it can cause the death of many people, it should be kept secret.[/QUOTE] Yes. The military doesn't classify documents for no reason.
Now this is just getting overboard. Making propaganda against wikileaks only makes us look worse.
[QUOTE=Akasolidus;23962675]Now this is just getting overboard. Making propaganda against wikileaks only makes us look worse.[/QUOTE] How else would you want them to react then? any country would have done the same.
The documents are classified FOR A REASON.
No one died from the leaks, there's no reason to keep it secret unless you want hide war crimes.
Wikileaks's the best thing ever happen to america.
Instead if spending money on legal trails they should increase security of documents like these.
[QUOTE=SwizzChees;23962966]Wikileaks's the best thing ever happen to america.[/QUOTE] This. Also, I find it quiet ironic that they're saying Wikileaks is a human rights issue when the U.S. army is the worst military group today, far worse than what you could say about the Taliban. They've killed countless Afghan civilians carelessly. The war isn't about "Freedom" or anything like that, it's about personal gain, and the U.S. government doesn't want the world to find out. I hope Wikileaks continues this.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23962586]Damn it, treason is only against your own country, so no. Even australia can't really charge him with treason, he released info against the US not them. It may have affected australia in a roundabout way, but it's not direct treason. I keep seeing the word misused and it's getting annoying :colbert:[/QUOTE] Actually, it is treason. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Australia[/url] [quote](e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy: (i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and (ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or (f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist: (i) another country; or (ii) an organisation;[/quote] Wikileaks released information which could aid the Taliban in the fight against Australia and other Commonwealth forces (such as the U.K.). [QUOTE=Leaf Runner;23963109]This. Also, I find it quiet ironic that they're saying Wikileaks is a human rights issue when the U.S. army is the worst military group today, far worse than what you could say about the Taliban. They've killed countless Afghan civilians carelessly. The war isn't about "Freedom" or anything like that, it's about personal gain, and the U.S. government doesn't want the world to find out. I hope Wikileaks continues this.[/QUOTE] 'Personal gain'? You do realise why we went into Afghanistan in the first place, right? It wasn't about personal gain, it was about the national security for a number of countries.
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;23963109]This. Also, I find it quiet ironic that they're saying Wikileaks is a human rights issue when the U.S. army is the worst military group today, far worse than what you could say about the Taliban. They've killed countless Afghan civilians carelessly. The war isn't about "Freedom" or anything like that, it's about personal gain, and the U.S. government doesn't want the world to find out. I hope Wikileaks continues this.[/QUOTE] You're a fucking idiot. You really really are. The US army doesn't decapitate enemy combatants, the taliban torture and kill coalition forces, they torture and kill civilians. Seriously you are so fucking horribly misinformed.
[QUOTE=David29;23963110]Actually, it is treason. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Australia[/URL] Wikileaks released information which could aid the Taliban in the fight against Australia and other Commonwealth forces (such as the U.K.).[/QUOTE] Nope, WL didn't have intent to assist. Read your own C/P
I hate my fuckin country... We are america's bitch...
[QUOTE=scotland1;23962387]Not cool man.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's quite hard to censor 92,000 documents undermanned (under 100 people working on it), and when you ask help on censoring them, get called a liar for you never asked for help.
I was under the impression that an act of espionage against one NATO country was considered espionage against all of NATO, unless that doesn't fall under collective defense.
[QUOTE=Shibbey;23962654]Uh, if I remember correctly, Assange just collects stuff he gets sent and posts them on Wikileaks. He does it to protect people who want to tell the public about something but don't want to get arrested.[/QUOTE] And this is true, except in some cases, like this, they [Wikileaks] do their best to minimize casualties that could be caused by the leak.
Let's see how this ends, and if the crypted file got something.
The US made ridiculous mistakes. Don't blame leaks. Why can't they just admit the mistakes and try and move on. Its out there and forever will be, that is what they need to be solving.
He probably is going to be arrested and charged.
To all the people saying that their country is ''America's Bitch'' The article said the US was pressuring them to arrest and charge him, not force them to.
How about the rest of the world pressures America into stopping fucking up all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe if they got their shit together WikiLeaks wouldn't have so fucking much against them.
[QUOTE=imadaman;23963299]Yes, it's quite hard to censor 92,000 documents undermanned (under 100 people working on it), and when you ask help on censoring them, get called a liar for you never asked for help.[/QUOTE] So the just go ahead and release them all regardless of whether they are censored or not? Smooth. Here are some better options for wikileaks: 1. Don't release anything. 2. Release in batches. Censor one batch, release them, censor another batch, release them, etc. 3. Release them as they are censored. What wikileaks [b]shouldn't[/b] do is censor x number of documents and then release them all, regardless of whether they are censored or not, and then attempt to blame the government for - what strikes me as - their own incompetence/laziness.
Does anyone ever think anymore? America isn't making other countries do it, it's pressuring since this guys is leaking CLASSIFIED military documents during a time of war. And I swear to god if we have another "US IS JUST THERE TO KILL CIVILIANS HURRRR" I'm going to flip shit. We have like 7 of those a month and they're stupid arguments where it just degrades to name calling by the time its done.
Oh wow, international shitstorm
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;23963109]This. Also, I find it quiet ironic that they're saying Wikileaks is a human rights issue when the U.S. army is the worst military group today, far worse than what you could say about the Taliban. They've killed countless Afghan civilians carelessly. The war isn't about "Freedom" or anything like that, it's about personal gain, and the U.S. government doesn't want the world to find out. I hope Wikileaks continues this.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that the Taliban are oppressing the Afghans, murdering them, and denying them freedom. So yeah, it's about freedom.
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;23963109]This. Also, I find it quiet ironic that they're saying Wikileaks is a human rights issue when the U.S. army is the worst military group today, far worse than what you could say about the Taliban. They've killed countless Afghan civilians carelessly. The war isn't about "Freedom" or anything like that, it's about personal gain, and the U.S. government doesn't want the world to find out. I hope Wikileaks continues this.[/QUOTE] You do realize there is nothing we can gain by being there, right? It's a barren wasteland for the most part.
Just waiting for the Insurance.AES256 password to be released. Oh and to the guy that said he would laugh if someone cracked the pass... it would take millions of years to brute force AES256 encryption even with a supercomputer. Assange hasn't done any wrong morally or legally in my opinion. I'm proud that someone is standing up for us. Now we can bring some truth to what the government does since we can't trust them otherwise. On the other hand some of this information is dangerous to the well being of some individuals, but I respect the fact that Wikileaks is willing to work with the government to censor the names. I found the article about predator drones being hijacked by the shareware called skygrabber to be really interesting. It even explains somewhat on how they did it. The military was naive to use unencrypted data to communicate with the drones.
[QUOTE=Dolton;23963786]You do realize there is nothing we can gain by being there, right? It's a barren wasteland for the most part.[/QUOTE] You're right. It was just a precursor for the 'war on terror' aka 'operation suck-teh-shit-outa-Iraqi-oilfields-then-probably-move-on-to-Iran-when-the-are-dry'.
[QUOTE=nevaeh;23963865]On the other hand some of this information is dangerous to the well being of some individuals, but I respect the fact that Wikileaks is willing to work with the government to censor the names.[/QUOTE] The thing that annoys me about this is that how can we know for certain that wikileaks isn't lying it? I know the US government isn't exactly the fountain of truth, but it is wikileaks' word against the US government's and for all we know it is possible that wikileaks could be lying. There is no proof to say that wikileaks really did ask the US Government for help in censoring the documents. [QUOTE=Kade;23963890]You're right. It was just a precursor for the 'war on terror' aka 'operation suck-teh-shit-outa-Iraqi-oilfields-then-probably-move-on-to-Iran-when-the-are-dry'.[/QUOTE] Oh wow, you are misinformed.
[QUOTE=Kade;23963890]You're right. It was just a precursor for the 'war on terror' aka 'operation suck-teh-shit-outa-Iraqi-oilfields-then-probably-move-on-to-Iran-when-the-are-dry'.[/QUOTE] This, however, is true.
[QUOTE=Kade;23963890]You're right. It was just a precursor for the 'war on terror' aka 'operation suck-teh-shit-outa-Iraqi-oilfields-then-probably-move-on-to-Iran-when-the-are-dry'.[/QUOTE] you are aware that the united states is not the only country dependent on petroleum, aren't you? on top of that, if we wanted a large, easy oil reserve we could simultaneously invade Canada and Saudi Arabia and be better off than if we controlled Iraq's reserve.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.