Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 10:22 am
Do you think that Julian Assange will be shot trying to escape when they catch up with him?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 3,601 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 10:42 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Do you think that Julian Assange will be shot trying to escape when they catch up with him?


I hope not. But even if they do, it won't stop his mission - it's already grown larger than can hope to be contained. His meme has already virused out big time and there are plenty of folks working to carry on the mission - whether he is there or not.

The genie is out of the bottle and people are just going to have to learn to deal with less secrecy then they currently have.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 11:22 am
To tell the honest truth, I feel a little bit of a hypocrite. When that same wiki leaks leaked stuff about torture and things like that I was ok. From what I gather about this leak, it is just stuff said between diplomatic and worse, things said between countries now of issues we are dealing with now, like North Korea and Iran and Arab countries....I just didn't get the same rightness about it.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 11:29 am
@revelette,
Falsehoods about Bush made you happy and this leak of truths makes no impact on you... that's Revolting.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 11:40 am
@H2O MAN,
Both were truths about same if the credibility is of the author is assumed to correct. We need to know when our government does something like torture or kill civilians. Some of this second leak, still concerns Bush, but I still don't approve or I am not comfortable with since it all involves diplomacy or other efforts we are still dealing with. The first leaks also concerned the Obama administration as he has continued some of the practices or has not stopped or prosecuted those practices and actions of the Bush administration and had words to explain something like "we want to move forward not backward." I was and remain fully disappointed with the Obama administration in this regard.

0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 01:29 pm
I'm only asking about this because I can see the possibility of it. For the record, I don't think he should be assassinated . I can see it happening though as a sort of "We've had enough" warning.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 01:40 pm
I don't think it will happen, he might be prosecuted if there were laws broken. I don't really know.

I sure made a mess of my earlier post, nothing new I guess.

On another totally unrelated note, boy these cookie things really follow you around. Before coming on here, I was looking up kindles and comparing prices, and now at the bottom of the page I see advertising for kindles and laptops and even laptops in my area.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 02:22 pm
For better or worse, the guy might in hiding but he is not quiet.

WikiLeaks Founder Assange to TIME: Clinton 'Should Resign'

Quote:
Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange said, "should resign." Speaking over Skype from an undisclosed location on Tuesday, the WikiLeaks founder was replying to a question by TIME managing editor Richard Stengel over the diplomatic-cable dump that Assange's organization loosed on the world this past weekend. Stengel had said the U.S. Secretary of State was looking like "the fall guy" in the ensuing controversy, and had asked whether her firing or resignation was an outcome that Assange wanted. "I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said. "But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."


I agree. When I said I was uncomfortable it was not stories such as that, but rather confidential issues with foreign leaders being leaked in which I disapproved.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 04:16 pm
Whats the difference between secrets and lieing to the people to cover military and political asses?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 04:39 pm
@rabel22,
I am not sure I follow your question; in fact you were asking me.

When wikileaks uncovered things about civilian deaths and apparently Hillary Clinton ordering spying on others in the UN against UN international rules, those sorts of things should be uncovered and investigated and dealt with. (rarely any of it gets done no matter how many leaks come about)

But revealing what Arab leaders secretly want in regards to peace but don't want Muslim extremist to know is just plain reckless in terms of diplomatic agreements and I do not see what public good comes out of it.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 04:46 pm
@revelette,
IF SECRETS WERE ONLY THE ONES WITH FORIEGN GOVERNMENTS I MIGHT AGREE WITH SOME OF WHAT YOU SAY BUT GOVERNMENT STAMPS ANYTHING THAT MIGHT EMBARESS A GENERAL, SENATOR, REPRESENTATIVE OR PRESIDENT AS SECRET TO COVER THEIR ASSES. Sorry I dident realize that I hit caps lock, im not shouting.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 07:31 am
I already knew the Obama administration has taken legal steps to prevent probes and/or trials of the previous administration and torture allegations. But from the same as has been coming in the last few days:

Quote:
In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable [1] sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

The previous month, a Spanish human rights group called the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had requested that Spain's National Court indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, "creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture." The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel. The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's "universal jurisdiction" law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents. Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria.

Soon after the request was made, the US embassy in Madrid began tracking the matter. On April 1, embassy officials spoke with chief prosecutor Javier Zaragoza, who indicated that he was not pleased to have been handed this case, but he believed that the complaint appeared to be well-documented and he'd have to pursue it. Around that time, the acting deputy chief of the US embassy talked to the chief of staff for Spain's foreign minister and a senior official in the Spanish Ministry of Justice to convey, as the cable says, "that this was a very serious matter for the USG." The two Spaniards "expressed their concern at the case but stressed the independence of the Spanish judiciary."

Two weeks later, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and the embassy's charge d'affaires "raised the issue" with another official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The next day, Zaragoza informed the US embassy that the complaint might not be legally sound. He noted he would ask Cándido Conde-Pumpido, Spain's attorney general, to review whether Spain had jurisdiction.

On April 15, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who'd recently been chairman of the Republican Party, and the US embassy's charge d'affaires met with the acting Spanish foreign minister, Angel Lossada. The Americans, according to this cable, "underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the US and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the United States. Here was a former head of the GOP and a representative of a new Democratic administration (headed by a president who had decried the Bush-Cheney administration's use of torture) jointly applying pressure on Spain to kill the investigation of the former Bush officials. Lossada replied that the independence of the Spanish judiciary had to be respected, but he added that the government would send a message to the attorney general that it did not favor prosecuting this case.

The next day, April 16, 2009, Attorney General Conde-Pumpido publicly declared that he would not support the criminal complaint, calling it "fraudulent" and political. If the Bush officials had acted criminally, he said, then a case should be filed in the United States. On April 17, the prosecutors of the National Court filed a report [2] asking that complaint be discontinued. In the April 17 cable, the American embassy in Madrid claimed some credit for Conde-Pumpido's opposition, noting that "Conde-Pumpido's public announcement follows outreach to [Government of Spain] officials to raise USG deep concerns on the implications of this case."

Still, this did not end the matter. It would still be up to investigating Judge Baltasar Garzón [3]—a world-renowned jurist who had initiated previous prosecutions of war crimes and had publicly said that former President George W. Bush ought to be tried for war crimes—to decide whether to pursue the case against the six former Bush officials. That June—coincidentally or not—the Spanish Parliament passed legislation narrowing the use of "universal jurisdiction." Still, in September 2009, Judge Garzón pushed ahead with the case [4].

The case eventually came to be overseen by another judge who last spring asked the parties behind the complaint to explain why the investigation should continue. Several human rights groups filed a brief [2] urging this judge to keep the case alive, citing the Obama administration's failure to prosecute the Bush officials. Since then, there's been no action. The Obama administration essentially got what it wanted. The case of the Bush Six went away.

Back when it seemed that this case could become a major international issue, during an April 14, 2009, White House briefing, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs if the Obama administration would cooperate with any request from the Spaniards for information and documents related to the Bush Six. He said [5], "I don't want to get involved in hypotheticals." What he didn't disclose was that the Obama administration, working with Republicans, was actively pressuring the Spaniards to drop the investigation. Those efforts apparently paid off, and, as this WikiLeaks-released cable shows, Gonzales, Haynes, Feith, Bybee, Addington, and Yoo owed Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thank-you notes.




source

So in this issue, Obama has come full circle and has copied the Bush administration including fibbing at press conference calling something ongoing "hypothetical." Disappointed.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 08:32 am
Suicide is a more likely outcome.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 02:03 pm
@H2O MAN,
No! The U.S. will just force one of the european governments to throw his ass in jail for 40 years to teach all us it dosent pay to **** with politicians.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 02:31 pm
Not intentionally as a means to silence him.

There doesn't seem to be all that much to this latest batch, and ever since the first one, he's been promising more. If someone or some group wanted to permanently silence him they would have done so before this latest release.

If I were him, I would be armed.

If he is armed anything can happen during a confrontation.

If something does, a lot of people will believe it was intentional.

H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 03:22 pm
@rabel22,
Pelosi will make him her house pet.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 03:25 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
The next day, April 16, 2009, Attorney General Conde-Pumpido publicly declared that he would not support the criminal complaint, calling it "fraudulent" and political. If the Bush officials had acted criminally, he said, then a case should be filed in the United States.


"a case should be filed in the United States". That's a good one.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 03:26 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It really is hard to tell you and Gob1 apart, Finn.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 08:48 am
In any event something weird is happening with the whole wikileak website and they had to reopen in Switzerland because of hackers.

The website is now available in the new domain name wikileaks.ch, the report claimed.

Curiouser and Curiouser.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 10:17 am
Bush recently said that his biggest regret as president was not finding WMD in Iraq. Presumably, he has no regrets on needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, having untold thousands of Americans killed or wounded, and largely destroying the country. As you know, he lied us into the war.

If he is not a war criminal, how can anyone else be a war criminal?
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Yes Or No?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 02:31:44