Wikileaks Founder Threatens to Release 'Doomsday' File - Polidicks

As a Australian citizen I am 95% sure he cannot be charged with treason in America. They could probably ding him for espionage though. People blow this way out of proportion. He is a troll. He likes the attention. I am not for Wikileaks. But I do not think that the US government is going to up and have him killed, or even kill him. They will be more interested in who his actually sources are, because it cant be just the one guy they already got. Edit But if he were to release information that compromised the lives of soldiers, I would be furious.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;26544497]perhaps when you're constantly plotting against other countries and spying on international organizations[/QUOTE] Congratulations, you just summed up pretty much every country in the western world.

[QUOTE=reardon_e12;26544513]As a Australian citizen I am 95% sure he cannot be charged with treason in America. They could probably ding him for espionage though. People blow this way out of proportion. He is a troll. He likes the attention. I am not for Wikileaks. But I do not think that the US government is going to up and have him killed, or even kill him. They will be more interested in who his actually sources are, because it cant be just the one guy they already got. Edit But if he were to release information that compromised the lives of soldiers, I would be furious.[/QUOTE] As far as I understand you are right, you have to be a subject of the country you are committing treason against for it to be treason. If anything its spying.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26544519]Congratulations, you just summed up pretty much every country in the western world.[/QUOTE] Which is why shit needs to change.

[QUOTE=Jsm;26544240]This is from someone who is effectively "from" the internet, wouldn't put it past him or Wikileaks. It would be fucking hilarious.[/QUOTE] I would die. I would laugh. And I wouldn't stop until I was dead.

What if the doomsday file is just a rick roll and the entire wikileaks scheme was just the ultimate Rick roll?

Has Australia banned information yet?

Wouldn't it be awesome if some of the other Wikileaks guys made a webiste with a countdowner? Shit'd be tense as fuck.

I call a bluff. However I'm deleting the insurance file, could have a virus in it for all I know.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;26544741]I call a bluff. However I'm deleting the insurance file, could have a virus in it for all I know.[/QUOTE] Probably, Wikileaks doesn't want a war more than anyone else. Also, don't be a dick, seed it for a while.

[QUOTE=thisispain;26543552]any kind of doomsday file is something we need to know about anyway i abhor the idea that the governments in the world all can just keep nice little secrets even though we give them sovereignty to do so[/QUOTE] You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

Julian isn't the one sending confidential documents to his own website. Maybe they should stop keeping so many secrets or begin hiding them a little more.

I can't believe what some papers may be soo dangerous, but i want it ;D

[QUOTE=Splendor;26544814]You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.[/QUOTE] I can quote too. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Here hoping that he gets arrested for something silly.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26544264]Oh goody, entitlement bullshit again.[/QUOTE] Do you pay up the nose for taxes? In Canada, we have to pay some of the highest taxes in the world-- and I want to see what they're doing with this money, and what is going on behind the scenes that we pledge our daily support to keep it running.. It isn't really bullshit buddy, do you pay any bills? Probably not.

[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26544849]Do you pay up the nose for taxes? In Canada, we have to pay some of the highest taxes in the world-- and I want to see what they're doing with this money, and what is going on behind the scenes that we pledge our daily support to keep it running.. It isn't really bullshit buddy, do you pay any bills? Probably not.[/QUOTE] I'm not your buddy, guy.

[QUOTE=Nerts;26544841]I can quote too. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/QUOTE] You give your government a monopoly on the use of coercive force to protect your country and it's interests by any means nessescary. What they show you is results, and then everything is jolly fucking good, but the reason they don't show you the means(what Wikileaks is doing) is because faggots like you get cold feet and bleeding hearts. Which is why you're not handling this shit yourself instead of delegating it to a government in the first place.

[QUOTE=Splendor;26544873]You give your government a monopoly on the use of coercive force to protect your country and it's interests by any means nessescary. What they show you is results, and then everything is jolly fucking good, but the reason they don't show you the means(what Wikileaks is doing) is because faggots like you get cold feet and bleeding hearts. Which is why you're not handling this shit yourself instead of delegating it to your government.[/QUOTE] Bombing random villagers in pakistan = protecting country and interests Just stop posting mingus, we get it, you're insane and want to kill people.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26544905]Bombing random villagers in pakistan = protecting country and interests[/QUOTE] Let me translate this for you non-schizophrenics; "Bombing radical Islamist militants in pakistan = protecting country and interests" And if a few civilians get caught in the explosion then you really should blame the militants for hiding among the civilian populace.

"Oh hey let's ignore this document showing us that the banking system is corrupt."

[QUOTE=Splendor;26544919]Let me translate this for you non-schizophrenics; "Bombing radical Islamist militants in pakistan = protecting country and interests" And if a few civilians get caught in the explosion then you really should blame the militants for hiding among the civilian populace.[/QUOTE] AHAhahahaHAHAhHAHAhaahahHAah oh godddd.

Dude's got balls

[QUOTE=Splendor;26544919]Let me translate this for you non-schizophrenics; "Bombing radical Islamist militants in pakistan = protecting country and interests"[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0714_targeted_killings_byman.aspx?p=1[/url] "Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died." [quote]And if a few civilians get caught in the explosion then you really should blame the militants for hiding among the civilian populace.[/quote] Whelp.

Protecting INTERESTS... THEN protecting the country... Thats the order.

[QUOTE=Splendor;26544873]You give your government a monopoly on the use of coercive force to protect your country and it's interests by any means nessescary. What they show you is results, and then everything is jolly fucking good, but the reason they don't show you the means(what Wikileaks is doing) is because faggots like you get cold feet and bleeding hearts. Which is why you're not handling this shit yourself instead of delegating it to a government in the first place.[/QUOTE] My sexuality has nothing to do with this. I don't want anyone to have a monopoly, period. Governments protect their own interests more often than mine, as evidenced by the repeated attempts to take down wikileaks and silence informants. The government does not know what's best for the people any more than they people themselves do and what you call "coercive force" I call intimidation, needless violence and threats.

Just thought this should be posted: [url]http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26544946][url]http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0714_targeted_killings_byman.aspx?p=1[/url] "Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died." Whelp.[/QUOTE] There's a reason why this happens though. I agree with you, but its hard to sift out a militant from a civilian. This unethical type of warfare has been used since WWII with the japenese building war factories in residential parts of their cities-- resulting in a catastrophic explosion which killed millions of innocents. It's fighting fire with fire, to be honest. But a lot can also be avoided, I'm sure. I'm no fucking war strategist, and neither are you-- or anyone on this forum for that matter. Most people here just talk out of their asses anyways.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26544946][url]http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0714_targeted_killings_byman.aspx?p=1[/url] "Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died."[/QUOTE] [url]http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones[/url] A study called 'The Year of the Drone" published in February 2010 by New America Foundation found that in a total of 114 drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and early 2010 approximately between 834 and 1,216 individuals had been killed, about two thirds of whom were thought to be militants and one third were civilians. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_America_Foundation[/url] Here is the link to their wiki page, because you people have a tendency to dismiss them as bloodthirsty neo-cons because their name contains "America". They're a non-partisan thinktank.

[QUOTE=faze;26543438]This guy's a fucking asshole. Shoot him, now. How can he release something when he's fucking [B]dead[/B]? Yay, boxes!!![/QUOTE] His associates can. As far as I know, the key to the Insurance file is held by a handful of people all around the world, each only having one part of the key. Anyway, I don't really believe him. Wouldn't security agencies prevent him from getting harmed if that file really contained information that, when revealed, could mean the end of the world as we know it? (I'd assume he'd give them the key, of course)