posted December 10, 2010 10:59 AM            

quote:

---

sarah palin was crying for assange's blood publicly and without any suggestion that he should be TRIED - just EXECUTED...katatonic

---

I'm going to let you show me where Palin said this little A-Hole should just be executed.

Further, Assange groupies are launching cyber attacks on lots of people....including banks and other institutions.

posted December 10, 2010 01:00 PM            

I already used the example of what could happen to troops if specific people are offended by the cables and those in charge reveal the missions that can be compromised leading to attacks.

Let's look at the Afghan's that are now compromised by the revelations. It is not just the "informer" or "helper" that is now at risk for death, it is the entire family that will bear the brunt of being related to the informer, through torture and death (which we are all familiar with as the Tabliban and Al-Queada have not been known for being merciful).

As to Assange and others (Assange is complicted in this act) leading the charge of cyber terrorism against banking institutions, they have acted in total disregard to the livelihood of regular working people in several countries by disabling various sites.

Cyber-terrorism is defined as:

The FBI defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Cyber-terrorism could thus be defined as the use of computing resources to intimidate or coerce others. An example of cyber-terrorism could be hacking into a hospital computer system and changing someone's medicine prescription to a lethal dosage as an act of revenge. It sounds far fetched, but these things can and do happen.

Assange and his henchmen are doing just that 'Arrest Assange and the world will be crippled until the government releases him and dismisses the charges'. The ultimatium is "let us do this OR ELSE we will cripple the net, government and banking indusutries".

Sounds like terrorism to me. Assange just revealed his hand to those that believed that the Wikileaks was all about his mission to "spread the word of the evil government (specifically US) entities".

It's all fun and games until we are personally affected by the inability to pay our bills because our banks are shut down. Tell the hungry people and people that are living pay check to pay check that this is all for the greater good. Yep, that will make it all better when they can't feed their children.

posted December 10, 2010 01:06 PM            

Hang on a minute...aren't the ones behind the plans for that guilty of terrorism?

posted December 10, 2010 01:19 PM            

If it is towards me, I prefer reliable sources and not youtube postings of disgruntled people that see consipiracy in everything.

The cyber attack from WL is something we can see and feel. The evidence is right before it and affects many people.

posted December 10, 2010 01:28 PM            

WikiLeaks itself has been under pressure from the U.S. following its release of thousands of State Department cables and other documents. Over the past week, a number of companies that provide WikiLeaks with various services have terminated their relationships with the organization, including Amazon.com Inc., eBay Inc.'s PayPal and Swiss bank PostFinance, a unit of Swiss Post.

In addition, attacks have been launched at organizations and individuals connected with Mr. Assange's personal legal troubles. The Swedish prosecutor's office and a lawyer representing the two women making allegations against Mr. Assange reported difficulties with their websites.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870472080457 6009723632691988.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

See, in the justice system Assange doesn't have to be caught with the smoking gun, but by giving the directive for others to "drop the bomb" he is complicit and therefore guilty by association.

Our good friends in Germany actually allow donations to WK, via a non-profit agency, to be tax deductible through paypal.. AWESOME... contributions to a terrorist group is non-taxable.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tax-deductible-wikileaks_522079.html

According to Winfried Motzkus, the chair of the Wau Holland Foundation’s board of directors, the foundation has thus far collected some €750,000 for WikiLeaks or nearly a million dollars at current exchange rates. The foundation allegedly disburses funds to WikiLeaks upon the submission of receipts for specific costs. The PayPal account used by WikiLeaks was in fact the account of the Wau Holland Foundation.

The fact that Germany would thus be supporting WikiLeaks is particularly ironic given that the application of anti-leak laws in Germany itself is unusually draconian. Thus, under the heading, “Aiding and Abetting in the Betrayal of [State] Secrets” [Beihilfe zum Geheimnisverrat], prosecutors may bring criminal charges against not only German officials who leak sensitive information, but also journalists who publish such information.

The foundation is named for the late Wau Holland, one of the founders of the Chaos Computer Club, a Hamburg-based association of computer hackers with branches throughout Germany.

posted December 10, 2010 01:37 PM            

The fact are- we KNOW that Assange charged his followers to lead attacks against various institutions. He made that very public on his Twitter and website

We know he published top secret information that revealed troop movements and Afghan informers- again revealed publically by him via his website and leaks to others.

What we don't know is who died as a result and we probably won't (at least the general public) but it will further compromise the troops.

What evidence would you like that hasn't already been put into the global forum by Assange himself? Do you need a video from the Taliban as they murder a Soldier or informer while they state 'Thank you Assange for giving us the information'

Let's look at it has it pertains to you. If someone publically stated they had access to your personal e-mails, correspondance, telephone conversations and financial data and put it on their website for others to see and then you became the victim of identity theft, lost your home, your job and were wiped out financially- would you consider the person guilty of an attack against you?

I would presume YES. You would have the evidence. Now, if I take your position I would state "well, how do we really know that LTT did not just set herself up? How do we know she just didn't get herself into financial problems because she is evil and has issues? I don't see a smoking gun where the attacker is actually seen spending her money".

posted December 10, 2010 04:51 PM            

without defending or attacking him can we step back and recognize that he is not necessarily to blame for every cyber attack that occurs even if they are protesting his apprehension? sympathizers can be batsh!t crazy too you know.

thanks for supplying apparently solid info archer, it is somewhat lacking everywhere these days.

posted December 11, 2010 05:30 AM            

quote:

---

Again LTT.. proof would be good or at least a counter to what has been posted other than a one liner or nonsensical quip.

---

posted December 11, 2010 07:40 AM            

Interview-Bio

posted December 11, 2010 10:08 AM            

I don't give a rat's ass about what someone says Palin really meant by what she said. That's speculation.

posted December 11, 2010 02:42 PM            

“He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”

posted December 11, 2010 03:38 PM            

I am going to say to you what I said to LTT. Do you need a video of a Taliban member cutting off the head of a service member, citizen or combatant with the headline "This beheading was brought to you by Assange" in order to make it real?

posted December 11, 2010 07:33 PM            

however i could make a case for sarah palin(or any of a number of other people) having been working hard to undermine our govt in other ways and i am NOT calling for her to be hunted down and/or gagged. she reminds me of the man i saw the day after 9/11 who was 100% positive that nuking afghanistan would solve the problem in one blow..how many afghanis even knew who we were ten years ago? it's not like they have tvs or even much in the way of newspapers...and even if every one of them were "america haters" they haven't got two sticks to rub together so i would consider nuking a serious case of overkill...

and it is weird, don't you think, if this man actually leaked what people say he did and compromised our troops, that the only thing he has been charged with is "consentual sex without a condom"...

AND while i understand there is plenty we do not need to know and our knowing would probably make us jump to the wrong conclusions, there is plenty good about outting the corruption and plain old idiocy of people who supposedly carry our interests and safety in their briefcases...

one doesn't have to "hate america" to wish she would do things differently. or to see that this statement "Now your children, daughters and sisters shall die like our brothers and sisters and children are dying," is the truth from the OTHER side of the fence.

posted December 11, 2010 09:04 PM            

Oh, please do give us the scope of your knowledge on this subject katatonic.

posted December 15, 2010 09:55 PM            

Nonsense.

On the books, in the law, there is a statute that whosoever comes into possession of classified information/documents which they do not have a security clearance to see or hear...has the legal obligation to notify the proper authorities AND to not disseminate that information to others who also do not have the proper security clearance to see or hear the information.

Dissemination of the information...except to the proper authorities carries a federal penalty of federal prison time.

There's another statute regarding the dissemination of classified information...which is harmful to the United States. Violation of that statute carries a federal prison term of up to 10 years.

posted December 16, 2010 11:07 AM            

Why Shouldn’t Freedom of the Press Apply to WikiLeaks?
You may not like Julian Assange, but the campaign to silence WikiLeaks should appall you

By Tim Dickinson
December 15, 2010 5:07 PM EDT

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the quarter of a million secret government cables from the State Department had been leaked, not to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, but to Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times.

First, let’s state the obvious: The Times would never have returned the confidential files to the Obama administration. Most likely, the newspaper would have attempted to engage with State to try to scrub life- and source- threatening details from the cables — as Assange and his lawyers did.

And if the administration had refused to participate in that effort -- as it did with WikiLeaks? The Times would have done what any serious news organization has the imperative to do: It would have published, at a pacing of its own choosing, any cable it deemed to be in the public interest. In this digital age, it’s likely the Times would have even created a massive searchable database of the cables.

The optics of the information dump would likely have been very different -- overlaid with the Times’ newspaper-of-record gravitas. But the effect would have been identical: Information that the U.S. government finds embarrassing, damning, and even damaging would have seen the light of day.

Now let’s extend the thought experiment:

How would you react if top American conservatives were today baying for Bill Keller’s blood? If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had called on Keller to be prosecuted as a “high-tech terrorist”? If Sarah Palin were demanding that Keller be hunted down like a member of Al Qaeda? If Newt Gingrich were calling for the Times editor to be assassinated as an “enemy combatant.”

What if Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, had successfully pressured the Times’ web hosting company to boot the newspaper off its servers? What if Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal suddenly stopped processing subscriptions for the paper?

Imagine that students at Columbia University’s graduate school of international affairs had been warned not to Tweet about the New York Times if they had any hopes of ever working at the State Department.

Imagine U.S. soldiers abroad being told that they’d be breaking the law if they read even other news outlets’ coverage of the Times’ exclusives.

Imagine that the Library of Congress had simply blocked all access to the New York Times site.

You can’t imagine this actually happening to the New York Times. Yet this has been has been exactly the federal and corporate response to Assange and WikiLeaks.

The behavior is outrageous on its face and totalitarian in its impulse. Indeed, we should all be alarmed at the Orwellian coloring of the Obama administration’s official response to the publishing of the cables:

“President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal.”

Secrecy is openness. What the **** ?!