HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » US calls Assange 'enemy o...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:38 PM

US calls Assange 'enemy of state'

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" — not releasable to non-US nationals — record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.

...

US Vice-President Joe Biden labelled Assange a "high-tech terrorist" in December 2010 and US congressional leaders have called for him to be charged with espionage.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html



This article speaks for itself.

285 replies, 48892 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 285 replies Author Time Post
Reply US calls Assange 'enemy of state' (Original post)
AntiFascist Sep 2012 OP
msongs Sep 2012 #1
kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #3
bahrbearian Sep 2012 #6
Fuddnik Sep 2012 #8
kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #86
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #133
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #16
robinlynne Sep 2012 #24
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #69
Xipe Totec Sep 2012 #126
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #131
Xipe Totec Sep 2012 #267
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #271
Xipe Totec Sep 2012 #273
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #274
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #152
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #153
robinlynne Sep 2012 #172
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #279
robinlynne Sep 2012 #171
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #184
robinlynne Sep 2012 #185
kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #91
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #94
Capn Sunshine Sep 2012 #99
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #161
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #135
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #151
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #155
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #156
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #272
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #25
George II Sep 2012 #55
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #97
leveymg Sep 2012 #109
pam4water Sep 2012 #137
George II Sep 2012 #164
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #233
George II Sep 2012 #251
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #278
robinlynne Sep 2012 #175
George II Sep 2012 #163
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #201
cantbeserious Sep 2012 #205
hughee99 Sep 2012 #239
bitchkitty Sep 2012 #254
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #9
George II Sep 2012 #52
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #79
George II Sep 2012 #143
dflprincess Sep 2012 #154
George II Sep 2012 #159
dflprincess Sep 2012 #166
George II Sep 2012 #170
xiamiam Sep 2012 #187
George II Sep 2012 #218
dflprincess Sep 2012 #190
George II Sep 2012 #219
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #157
George II Sep 2012 #162
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #165
bitchkitty Sep 2012 #255
George II Sep 2012 #262
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #178
George II Sep 2012 #183
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #186
David__77 Sep 2012 #192
George II Sep 2012 #195
David__77 Sep 2012 #199
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #83
pscot Sep 2012 #90
George II Sep 2012 #146
pscot Sep 2012 #194
George II Sep 2012 #145
leveymg Sep 2012 #116
George II Sep 2012 #147
leveymg Sep 2012 #210
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #139
George II Sep 2012 #148
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #275
George II Sep 2012 #277
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #81
FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #2
TDale313 Sep 2012 #4
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #5
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #11
FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #101
jeff47 Sep 2012 #108
FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #200
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #111
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #149
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #160
robinlynne Sep 2012 #177
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #188
George II Sep 2012 #229
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #242
George II Sep 2012 #221
greiner3 Sep 2012 #14
jeff47 Sep 2012 #74
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #103
jeff47 Sep 2012 #120
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #142
jeff47 Sep 2012 #252
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #257
leveymg Sep 2012 #220
jeff47 Sep 2012 #253
leveymg Sep 2012 #261
George II Sep 2012 #264
Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #215
George II Sep 2012 #268
The Doctor. Sep 2012 #132
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #141
robinlynne Sep 2012 #179
xiamiam Sep 2012 #191
The Doctor. Sep 2012 #204
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #136
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #7
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #13
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #18
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #134
robinlynne Sep 2012 #27
malthaussen Sep 2012 #29
robinlynne Sep 2012 #32
jeff47 Sep 2012 #77
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #88
Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #10
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #17
Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #20
reorg Sep 2012 #21
Gregorian Sep 2012 #23
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #28
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #35
reorg Sep 2012 #61
Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #34
Gregorian Sep 2012 #43
defacto7 Sep 2012 #15
xchrom Sep 2012 #19
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #22
byeya Sep 2012 #26
KamaAina Sep 2012 #30
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #33
KamaAina Sep 2012 #39
jeff47 Sep 2012 #82
Demeter Sep 2012 #31
hobbit709 Sep 2012 #57
cantbeserious Sep 2012 #206
grahamhgreen Sep 2012 #36
cantbeserious Sep 2012 #207
AlphaCentauri Sep 2012 #37
Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #38
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #42
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #50
Mnemosyne Sep 2012 #58
jeff47 Sep 2012 #66
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #75
jeff47 Sep 2012 #87
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #93
jeff47 Sep 2012 #102
Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #63
Proletariatprincess Sep 2012 #138
robinlynne Sep 2012 #182
gateley Sep 2012 #193
valerief Sep 2012 #40
They_Live Sep 2012 #85
jerseyjack Sep 2012 #41
bupkus Sep 2012 #44
villager Sep 2012 #45
krawhitham Sep 2012 #46
hobbit709 Sep 2012 #47
Spirochete Sep 2012 #54
jeff47 Sep 2012 #65
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #71
jeff47 Sep 2012 #92
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #100
jeff47 Sep 2012 #106
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #168
defacto7 Sep 2012 #48
defacto7 Sep 2012 #95
bread_and_roses Sep 2012 #49
George II Sep 2012 #51
heaven05 Sep 2012 #53
Socal31 Sep 2012 #64
druidity33 Sep 2012 #209
heaven05 Sep 2012 #224
Robb Sep 2012 #56
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #70
jeff47 Sep 2012 #73
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #84
jeff47 Sep 2012 #98
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #117
jeff47 Sep 2012 #119
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #125
Robb Sep 2012 #127
marmar Sep 2012 #59
jeff47 Sep 2012 #60
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #89
Smarmie Doofus Sep 2012 #62
jtuck004 Sep 2012 #67
jeff47 Sep 2012 #68
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #72
jeff47 Sep 2012 #110
SamKnause Sep 2012 #76
whistler162 Sep 2012 #105
robinlynne Sep 2012 #181
Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #216
msanthrope Sep 2012 #263
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #284
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #78
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #80
randome Sep 2012 #114
24601 Sep 2012 #96
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #113
jeff47 Sep 2012 #115
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #118
jeff47 Sep 2012 #123
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #128
24601 Sep 2012 #144
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #167
24601 Sep 2012 #248
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #260
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #203
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #276
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #104
leveymg Sep 2012 #107
jeff47 Sep 2012 #112
leveymg Sep 2012 #121
jeff47 Sep 2012 #122
leveymg Sep 2012 #212
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #124
leveymg Sep 2012 #211
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #217
20score Sep 2012 #129
xiamiam Sep 2012 #197
reorg Sep 2012 #130
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #140
tama Sep 2012 #213
robinlynne Sep 2012 #245
GeorgeGist Sep 2012 #150
George II Sep 2012 #158
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #169
George II Sep 2012 #173
OnyxCollie Sep 2012 #174
Robb Sep 2012 #180
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #208
George II Sep 2012 #222
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #176
Festivito Sep 2012 #202
tama Sep 2012 #214
Zorra Sep 2012 #280
xiamiam Sep 2012 #189
mzmolly Sep 2012 #227
xiamiam Sep 2012 #231
mzmolly Sep 2012 #232
tama Sep 2012 #234
mzmolly Sep 2012 #235
mzmolly Sep 2012 #236
tama Sep 2012 #238
mzmolly Sep 2012 #240
tama Sep 2012 #241
mzmolly Sep 2012 #258
tama Sep 2012 #259
mzmolly Sep 2012 #270
xiamiam Sep 2012 #196
KoKo Sep 2012 #265
iamthebandfanman Sep 2012 #198
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #223
Robb Sep 2012 #225
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #228
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #282
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #283
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #285
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #237
Robb Sep 2012 #243
reorg Sep 2012 #246
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #266
mzmolly Sep 2012 #226
bobthedrummer Sep 2012 #230
lovuian Sep 2012 #244
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #247
treestar Sep 2012 #249
MrMickeysMom Sep 2012 #250
Fire Walk With Me Sep 2012 #256
rachel1 Sep 2012 #269
woo me with science Sep 2012 #281

Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:40 PM

1. meanwhile killing women and kids in the name of the USA gets a nobel peace prize. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:44 PM

3. Yes, we are well aware you hate Obama. But you need to put a cork in it until after the election.

Your blatant opposition to our chosen presidential candidate is a violation of TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:48 PM

6. Thats right we won't allow truthiness here . Don't forget to alert on me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:48 PM

8. Your opposition to any dissenting viewpoint is censorship

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:39 PM

86. I haven't censored anyone. You don't know the meaning of the word. I've expressed my opinion.

Censorship would be if I personally deleted her post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:55 PM

133. You can't censor anyone. You might get a post hidden on DU but that will not

have even the remotest effect of silencing people in this country who are concerned about these issues. A far more sensible solution, since people all over the world are rising up in case you haven't noticed, would be for Democrats to engage those who have concerns about the direction in which this country is going.

See the huge demonstrations in Spain and Greece this week. And they are only going to get bigger, and spread to more countries, including this one. The people have had it with the same old 'be quiet' and 'let us decide what is good for you' rhetoric. We are in an election season, NOW is the time to let our politicians know what we want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

12. Well the questions are

Has the US been known to kill women and children and has anyone in the US won the Noble Peace Prize of late .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

16. Right.....

...put a cork in it until after the election.

- Of course you must realize that after the election is when truth will matter even less than it does now......



''Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'' ~George Orwell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

24. Thank-you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:23 PM

69. De nada



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:25 PM

126. You are free to criticize Dems at your nearest neighborhood Freeper hive

Enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:49 PM

131. So you think we should be quiet about issues, until the time to talk about issues is past?

Can you explain that logic to me please? Aren't elections supposed to be ABOUT ISSUES?

Have you asked Corporate Lobbyists who are currently making sure they do NOT remain silent about the issues their bosses want to see taken care of, to remain silent also? I'd love to see someone ask them to 'wait until after the election' to push their issues, but so far I have never seen a single request to them to be quiet.

Is there some reason why the people should be quiet about the issues that concern them at the only time when it actually matters? While Corporate Lobbyists are all over DC making sure the same politicians know exactly which issues are important to them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #131)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:45 PM

267. My response is to the Voltaire quote in your reply

Claiming that you are not allowed to criticize.

I am stating that you can criticize all you want, in the proper venue.

Nobody is stopping you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #267)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:45 PM

271. So I was right. You believe that Corporate Lobbyists should be free to get the

attention of our Elected officials to get their 'issues' heard which they work harder than ever at during election season, while the American people should just shut up and vote without letting those same Elected Officials know what issues they, the People, care about. That leaves the field open to Big Corporations without any challenge.

I have noted this 'tactic' now for the past few election cycles, and I have begun to wonder where it is coming from. Who benefits from the silence of the people? Certainly not the people.

And since when did it become a problem for any good politician to hear from the people s/he intends to represent?

'The proper venue'. That sounds so Orwellian. 'You may speak, but only in the proper venue'!

My Reps never object to hearing from me or my family and friends especially during election season. That is the very best time to get their attention, which is why I find this 'tactic' to be very suspect.

Someone doesn't want the people to be heard it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #271)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:55 PM

273. You must learn to read more carefully

Rather than reading between the lines only what you want or expect to see.

You disappoint me.

Primarily because you do not seem to understand what freedom of speech is.

You are free to express yourself. Nobody is stopping you. But use your own megaphone, not a borrowed one. Blast away at the Democratic candidates at any freeper site; they'll welcome you and lavish praise on you. Create your own website and say whatever you wish there. Nobody will stop you from doing that either. That's what freedom of speech is all about. But don't come here and whine if your posts get deleted for failing to conform to the terms of service of THIS community.

If you don't understand that, then you need to brush up on the constitution.

If, after that, you still think your freedom of speech is being infringed, then sue.

Let's see how far that gets you.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #273)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:29 PM

274. Interesting rant. Did you intend it for someone else btw? Not that I mind, I

enjoy rants no matter how little sense they make. But it really doesn't seem to be addressing anything I said.

If you want to lecture DUers, feel free, some people enjoy that role and good for them I suppose if that is their thing.

But don't be surprised if people don't pay much attention to your lectures.

Eg, and I hate to disappoint people like this, but your lecture here, if it was intended for me, had zero impact, just so you know.

To try to correct that and maybe be more successful in the future, my advice is that you try a different, more pleasant attitude if you really want to influence people. Which, and I could be wrong, it appears you do.

You catch more flies with honey!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:23 PM

152. I'm not critisizing any Dems. In fact I haven't spoken the name of a single one.

But you are. The pity is that you apparently can't see the contradiction. Nor the distinction.

I remember when we here at DU used to strain at the credulity of those ignorant Bush supporters whose only membership requirement for that club was being borne with two blind eyes. Yes, we laughed and laughed at their apparent blindness to reality.

Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe you do see it all, and you're anger isn't really directed at me so much as it is your own conscience flaying you for remaining silent on so important an issue when it really matters.

If you are in fact upset with yourself for being forced to ignore the contradictions, you would do well to think before you accuse someone of something they haven't done. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, that's fine with me too. Just one more nail in the coffin as far as I can see.

- One more nail in someone's coffin.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #152)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:29 PM

153. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:16 PM

172. We are all free to criticize Dems wherever we want. That is called democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #126)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:28 AM

279. and that poster is free to say what that poster said here

enjoy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:15 PM

171. ooh. your sig gave me the shivers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #171)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:34 PM

184. Thank you.

- On this thread it appears to be particularly relevant. I chose it to serve as a reminder for myself. If others can gain something from it, so much the better......


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #184)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:36 PM

185. and this sig is beautiful. especially right after the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:42 PM

91. So, I take it you prefer Rmoney? Because like it or not, that's the choice.

Take the anti-Obama crap and stuff it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #91)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:48 PM

94. How truly pathetic. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #94)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:53 PM

99. my, that is so elegantly stated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capn Sunshine (Reply #99)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:37 PM

161. Thank you. I thought it best to be direct, succinct.....

...and to the point when dealing with folderol, and such a spurious conclusion.


''Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.'' ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #91)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:00 PM

135. So if you opposed the War in Iraq I take it you loved Saddam Hussein?

I love how now the 'left' has adapted the ridiculous 'logic' of the far right!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #135)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:20 PM

151. It's like debating seven-year olds.

check out this Nader thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=245332

Did you know Ralph Nader was responsible for the bp oil spill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #151)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:29 PM

155. Thanks for the heads up. ;-) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #151)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:31 PM

156. Lol, you're right. Although that is an insult to seven year olds.

I had no idea Ralph caused the BP oil spill. I guess I just wasn't paying attention!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #91)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:48 PM

272. So if you opposed the War in Iraq, you Loooooved Saddam Hussein?

Where did I hear that logic before? It is so familiar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

25. LOL!

Your incapacity to accept reality is amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:58 PM

55. I just posted the part of the TOS you refer to...........thanks for pointing it out as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:49 PM

97. And after the election will be different? Who do you think you are fooling.

Why dont you freely discuss issues in lieu of patrolling the DU neighborhood looking for hoodies.

I will support President Barack Obama but I will never sit down and shut up, not for Rahmbo and not for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:00 PM

109. No, it's not a violation of TOS. Wanna put that to a test?

Go ahead and alert and see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:03 PM

137. "Your blatant opposition to our chosen presidential candidate is a violation of TOS." That sure is

censorship. Why do you feel the need to run in like school girl to snitch?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pam4water (Reply #137)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:43 PM

164. Once again, reread the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #164)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:58 PM

233. We know what the TOS says, but we dont agree with your judgement that the post is in

violation. Do you understand that people can disagree. Yelling over and over to "reread the TOS", isnt going to change anyone's mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #233)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:26 PM

251. YES, I understand that people disagree.....unless of course one "side" criticizes Assange's cult...

...then we have to suffer the slings and arrows of the Assange SWAT team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #251)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:23 AM

278. get another hobby

authoritarian wannabe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pam4water (Reply #137)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:18 PM

175. to Siberia! to to the gulag!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:42 PM

163. Don't you realize you can't criticize "Saint" Julien or his supporters without recrimination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:13 AM

201. Actually he makes a fair point

Blowing up civilians is excusable and okay, but exposing that sort of stuff is terrorism? That seems to be our nation's official policy on this now, and I don't give a shit who the president is, it's a fucked-up standard and needs to be fixed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:54 AM

205. Criticizing A Bad Policy Of The US Government And The Inexplicable Nobel Selection Rules

is not a violation of the TOS.

Obama has many, many flaws which include his handling of several international issues.

That statement in no way undermines the fact that he is a better candidate than Rmoney.

The fact of the matter is that our political system and the processes that fund and select candidates is deeply flawed.

Think Citizens United and all the undertow that goes along with unlimited campaign spending.

Hence the reason that we as US Citizens have so little effective choice and ultimately have to live in a country that enables such bad international policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:15 PM

239. Exactly, save it for sometime between May and July of 2013

That's long enough after the 2012 election that the president has had enough time to recover from the stresses campaign but not so close to the 2014 midterms or fundraising. It's the exact period of time when the president has zero incentive to listen to "the people". THAT is the appropriate time to voice one's displeasure.

Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with some people, thinking that bringing up issues when politicians need them most will help to influence any change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:36 PM

254. Are you kidding? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:51 PM

9. Exactly.

''We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men (and women).'' ~George Orwell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:55 PM

52. Terms of Service:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

79. So which one of those.....

...is msongs? An extreme-fringe left-winger? A hard-line communist? A kook or crackpot? ♫Or a partridge-in-a-pear-tree!?♫

And when one has been so designated, does one just leave? Self-deport? Turn oneself in and throw oneself onto the mercy of the double-think courts? Or is it more like going into a Room 101 kind of deal?

- And finally, does double-think hurt? Or do you just get used to it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:11 PM

143. You skipped over the FIRST part of my quote of the TOS:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."

Got it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #143)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:29 PM

154. We all understand it is important to elect more Democrats

and many of us also understand that there is more to being a Democratic than putting a "D" after one's name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #154)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:34 PM

159. Then why criticize them during an important election campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #159)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:47 PM

166. Because when they're looking for our votes is the only time they may listen

and because we are not Republicans who follow with blind obedience.

I don't like voting for Republicans and that includes the ones with a "D" after their names and I'm not going to be quiet about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #166)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:14 PM

170. So you're not supporting "D"emocratic candidates...as we said, a violation of the TOS around here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #170)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:45 PM

187. constitution..first amendment. Every elected official has sworn an oath to uphold it. Citizens are

responsible to require that. Defending a D or an R who does not is irresponsible. Politicians come and go. The constitution does not. Every democrat here should know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xiamiam (Reply #187)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:02 AM

218. You can defend "D"s, "R"s, and "I"s if you like, but...........

........on "Democratic Underground" you agreed to the TOS which is to support "D"s!!!

This is going around in a circle, I suggest once again that the TOS and Community Guidelines be reviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #170)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:59 PM

190. I sent money to Bernie Sanders

maybe you want to alert on me for that - he's not a Democrat.

I didn't say I wasn't voting for Obama I said I was tired of being expected to support Republicans who put a "D" after their names. And I'm tired of the Democratic party running these tools because they know we'll be too afraid of the Republican not to vote for the DLC/Third Way/"New" Democrat.

So I'm voting for the lesser of evils (again) but I'm not happy about it and I'm not going to be quiet about it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #190)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:04 AM

219. You're completely missing the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #143)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:31 PM

157. I don't see the part about not criticizing leadership or policy.

One can criticize while remaining loyal - it's one of the fundamental tenets of freedom of speech. I don't see the proscription of criticism in the TOS, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #157)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:39 PM

162. Well...

...when leadership is Democratic and we're right in the middle of a hotly contested Presidential and Congressional campaign, you might as well come right out and say you don't support the Obama administration.

Oh, by the way, "Saint" Julien promised he would return to Sweden to address the rape allegations against him but now he's cowardly holed up in the Equadorian embassy in London. I suppose what he is being investigated isn't a "legitimate rape"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #162)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:45 PM

165. You may not like it, but it's still not a TOS violation.

I tend to keep my mouth shut about American politics, but it's largely because I'm Canadian and don't have a dog in the fight. I do have strong opinions about the Democratic administration, and many of them are distinctly uncomplimentary. Let's just say that I'm a very left-wing progressive, and I'm pretty sure they're not. It's not my place to diss them though, and I'm here to talk about other stuff anyway.

I am a diehard Assange supporter, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #162)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:43 PM

255. It's not "Saint" anything,

But it is Julian, not Julien.

Thought I'd just point that out. You don't want to look stupid as shit or anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #255)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:59 AM

262. Harping on spelling errors on the internet went out with the Atari computer...........

............thought I'd just point that out. You don't want to look stupid as Assange or anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #143)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:23 PM

178. I get what the statement says.....

...what I don't have and what you still haven't explained is what that statement has to do with msong's observation? How does stating an obvious fact undermine the above stated objective?

Are you saying that ''working within the system'' means remaining silent except when what you say is popular and supportive like air-brushing removes flaws so they can't be seen?

Or are you saying that to be a supportive Dem, it requires that one sport two blind eyes so as to more effectively ''work within the system''???

Isn't omission the same thing as lying?

And assuming that you have a point (which I know is a grand assumption, but bear with me) you still haven't told me which one of these ''crimes against Dems'' applies to msong. So, if you can't even say which crime has been violated and is applicable, then how can you then say it's a violation of the TOS at all? Eh?

I can only conclude in the absence of a charge, that none of this applies to msong and you haven't thought through your statement and just shot your mouth off without thinking. It happens. I've even done it, but it was a long time ago.


- However, I also understand your difficulty, given your.... er... condition.....

Take care.


- It's okay for Lady Justice to be blind, but not us citizens......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #178)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:30 PM

183. Who is "msong"?

And just what is my "difficulty" and "condition"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #183)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:45 PM

186. As for who is.....

... msongs? it was msongs' comment above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=246390

and kestrel91316's response to msongs' comment that started this difference of opinion about what is acceptable to say about Dems. Here is your post citing the TOS to kestrel91316, which seemingly supports her idea of embedded censorship here at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=246541


As for your ''difficulty'' and ''condition,'' there is apparently no conflict which arises in some people who claim to support freedom, liberty and democracy -- while simultaneously trying to squash it in others. Such behavior is called ''doublethink'' -- the holding to two directly contradictory ideas and accepting them both {I provided links so beyond that, I don't know what more I can do}.

- In any event, don't sweat it, it's just a ride.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #143)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:03 AM

192. I always thought the line was advocacy against a Democratic candidate...

And even then, there were always exceptions, for people like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. There are many people who are critical of Obama but will vote for and campaign for his reelection. We are adults and many of us have the maturity and political discipline to handle seeming political struggle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #192)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:09 AM

195. Neither Lieberman nor Miller ran for office as Democrats after they "crossed over"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #195)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:29 AM

199. True... there are others though.

Plenty of Blue Dogs that you'll hear nary a positive word about. My point is that no one here is campaigning or advocating for their Republican or fringe party opponents (or very rarely anyway). Whether or not criticism of Obama is a TOS violation certainly isn't up to me, but I'd be surprised if that was the case. I think it's pretty clear when someone is left-critical of Obama and part of the broad progressive/Democratic trend, and when someone is simply "intervening" to be disruptive of Democratic efforts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:36 PM

83. So where d you fit in if you think President Obama did not and does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

 

Is that one of the forbidden categories?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:40 PM

90. Come and sit by me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #90)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:12 PM

146. No thanks...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #146)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:09 AM

194. George the first was often reckoned

vile, but viler George the second
and what mortal ever heard
any good of George the third
When from earth the forth descended
god be praised, the Georges ended

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:11 PM

145. See my response to the previous post above - ditto to you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:05 PM

116. Do I have your permission to start alerting on the Neo-cons prowling around posting war propaganda?

What about those advocating violent political/social change in Syria and Iran? Or, do the rules no longer apply just because that's been the policy pushed by the outgoing Secretary of State?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #116)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:12 PM

147. What does that have to do with my post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #147)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:14 AM

210. You're the one who posted the TOS.

You don't seem to comprehend its full meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:04 PM

139. And which one of those applies to anyone in this thread?

Any LaRoucheis here? Freepers? Birthers? Kooks? Crackpots? America-haters?

Point them out and I will gladly alert on them also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #139)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:14 PM

148. Why did you skip over the first part of my post and zero in on the last part?

Paranoia?

"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."


The OP doesn't do that!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #148)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:39 PM

275. Okay, since you haven't pointed any of them out I guess there are none here. So why

did you post that at all then?

And you claim I am the one who is paranoid? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #275)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:35 PM

277. It's right in front of your eyes, if you choose to ignore it then so be it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:35 PM

81. No shit!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:40 PM

2. Hope this ends all the silly posts about how the US doesn't want to get him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:45 PM

4. It should.

But it won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:46 PM

5. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. K&R anyway.... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:51 PM

11. Could you highlight the part in the article where it said the US did want him please as I am

just not seeing it, probably because I have only had only 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:55 PM

101. Really?

'Enemy of the State' doesn't tell you they're after him?

Be serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:59 PM

108. "Enemy of the State" also isn't supported by the article.

Headline writer got a lot more clicks with the bad headline though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #108)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:10 AM

200. You're right. How did I get that from this?

"THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:01 PM

111. How does that = "they want him arrested and extradited" ?

Sure, they flagged him and I assume his organization and any others that publish stolen classified documents as an enemy in their rules so as to make sure the that military personal know that leaking classified documents will not be tolerated but thats a far cry from saying they have issued an arrest warrant or have one in the works or atleast thats how I am reading it atm though of course that "is" with only 4 hours of sleep so I could have missed something in which case please point it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #111)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:16 PM

149. They did not steal anything. They did what news organizations are supposed to do

they published material about war crimes and economic crimes provided to them by whistle-blowers. I remember a certain presidential candidate promising to protect whistle-blowers btw.

We know that the US has a GJ seated trying to get an indictment against a multi-award winning Journalist for publishing FACTS. No one has disputed that what Wikileaks published were facts. And we have read from one of the country's top security contractors, that they have that indictment, sealed and are ready to issue an arrest warrant when necessary. Right now, they are happy to allow Sweden, one of our puppets, to do the dirty work.

The problem with these tactics is that it makes him even more of a martyr and hero to the cause of openness in government. And since right now Assange is more popular worldwide than the US Government, this will only make him even more popular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #149)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:36 PM

160. Reread my post sabrina.

And then maybe you see your mistake and correct your post, if you dont see it I will be happy to explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #111)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:21 PM

177. you missed the part that classifies wikileaks with al queda. And the part that says that SPEAKING to

Assange could bring about the death penalty!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #177)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:48 PM

188. Nope, reread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #188)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:45 AM

229. Yes, (to your respondee), reread AND familiarize yourself with the UCMJ.

It's a document that was written to imply that a ridiculous number of crimes "could" subject a person in the military to the death penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #229)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:35 PM

242. And like I said reread because I covered it.

"they flagged him and I assume his organization and any others that publish stolen classified documents as an enemy in their rules so as to make sure the that military personal know that leaking classified documents will not be tolerated"

Not sure if I agree with them for doing it though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #177)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:09 AM

221. That was a subjective interpretation of the article, not a statement of fact FROM the article!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:53 PM

14. I'm bookmarking for later;

So I can see how many of my 'favorite' Assange haters post here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

74. Hope Assange supporters will start actually reading the articles instead of just the headlines.

The Article says WikiLeaks is actually not "the enemy", unlike the headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #74)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:56 PM

103. So you dont support Assange but do support WikiLeaks? Strange. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #103)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:15 PM

120. Assange's ego is destroying any good WikiLeaks can do. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #120)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:10 PM

142. His "ego"? You are condeming him because of his ego? I hope you arent fooling yourself. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #142)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

252. I'm condemning him because he's putting himself above his cause. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #252)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:14 AM

257. What are you basing that on? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #120)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:23 AM

220. "Excessive ego" - Sounds like the sort of denuniation made by Stalinists of the Old Comrades.

From an old "fun list-serve" of pseudo Great Terror denunciations posted here (a hoot): www.cyberussr.com/rus/den-file1.html

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:47:20 -0700
From: "P.K. Volkov" prwolfe@ucla.edu
Reply-To: prwolfe@ucla.edu
Subject: Origins of Bulgakov
Comrades!
Our operatives report that the Bulgakov subject was actually of Ukrainian origin! He was therefore no doubt a Petliurist.
There was another newswire report of the Americanization of the traitor Khrushchov's traitorous son today. If Nikolai Ivanovich were still around, such "sbrod" would be well taken care of, indeed.
In Socialist greeting,
Molchanov, for CC

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Denunciation of enemy of the people
informer-name = Running Dog Tokarski
informer-email = terrace504@hotmail.com
informer-class = peasant stock, Czech-Irish
enemy-name = James Versluys
enemy-email = bitterbierce@hotmail.com
enemy-class = Officiate at state farm near Kladismuk
Article = excessive ego, frutchkin fraulines, taking excess rutabega unto his own household
comments = Suspect has launched a periodical newspaper. In it he has repeatedly referred to Western Class system as "product of geniuses" who share their abilities with the "ingrates" of workers, slaves who take all that is given and offer no gratitude in return.

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:49:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Denunciation of enemy of the people
informer-name = Jarkko Silen
informer-email = jarkko.silen@pp.inet.fi
informer-class = worker
enemy-name = Jyrki Seppälä
enemy-email = jyrkizet@hotmail.com
enemy-class = rootless cosmopolitan
Article = 58-11
comments = This wrecker owns a bourgeois summer cottage and has a lot of money and has a nick name "countZ". He is a real enemy of the people.

A vigilant Chekist comments:
So he thinks he's a "count," does he? Obvious material for Article 58-13.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #220)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:32 PM

253. Feel free to describe his attempts to avoid the consequences for rape in any other way. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #253)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:22 AM

261. It was consensual, so it wasn't rape. Next.

I'm not going in there again with you, Kommisar, but had to respond. Back to your duties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #261)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:15 PM

264. I guess it was "legitimate rape"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #103)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:21 AM

215. what exactly is so strange about that?

curious since i am the same way, i support Wikileaks and vast majority of the work they do, Assange however i have little to no respect based on my opinion of him(and his evasion of the Swedish court system)

I personally consider Wikileaks and Assange as two quite separate things, Wikileaks will do quite well even without Assange(likely better then they are now methinks).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #215)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:47 PM

268. That's the way I feel, too. Unfortunately......

....on this issue and these two "entities" (Wikileaks and Assange), to his cult following it's just like the rightwing zeal about bush's policies in 2001 and 2002 - "if you're not for us you're against us", and "why do you hate America?". Except in this case it's "if you're not for Assange you're against Wikileaks" and "why do you hate Wikileaks?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #74)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:54 PM

132. It would behoove his detractors to do the same.

 

The article is pretty clear that the US has declared Wikileaks an enemy.

You know.... Like where it says that sharing with Wikileaks is communicating 'with the enemy.

The hint in the article is the word 'Enemy'.

Just trying to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #132)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:10 PM

141. Well then, I am now an enemy. I follow them on Twitter, I read their blog, I

read the cables and boy are they fascinating.

I remember when they first attacked Wikileaks and their followers jumped rather than diminished.

I remember when Bush tried to set up the Total Information Act hotline, and thousands of us called it with 'information' until they could not handle it anymore and shut it down.

This will only increase support for Assange and Wikileaks. Whoever is responsible for these tactics, is not doing the US any favors. They are only proving the allegations of censorship, and anti-free press policies against the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #141)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:23 PM

179. Sabrina you are rocking tonight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #141)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:02 AM

191. oh sabrina..you mean " i solemnly swear to uphold the constitution" part

and everything in it? like the right to a free press? free press my ass, if he is an enemy of the state, under ndaa, I don't even think any of us could talk to him..am I right about that? I'm an assange and wikileaks supporter. He has an ego? So what. He's brilliant..where did these people come from who criticize him for being a journalist and telling the truth about this awful war. We need Assange and wikileaks, yet the us is doing everything to break him. It hurts deep in my gut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #141)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:19 AM

204. Again, it would behoove you to read and understand the article.

 


It clearly referred to Wikileaks as 'the enemy', not you, sabrina1.

If you can find whether the article suggests that people who follow wikileaks are 'the enemy', then you will have the answer to your question. IOW: try reading the article.

Bye now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:01 PM

136. It won't. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:48 PM

7. lol... well, many who don't know him will believe it

sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

13. Am I mistaken, or...

does this FOIA document provide solid evidence that Assange faces political persecution by the US... I mean, being considered an enemy and all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:04 PM

18. Put it this way

He's now in the same category as Al Qaeda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:56 PM

134. I guess anyone who seeded a WikiLeaks bittorrent

can now be considered "an associate" who provided "support" for a terrorist organization.

I think I hear Agent Mike at the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:13 PM

27. yes. beyond any doubt. Anyone who speaks with him can be prosecuted? insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:16 PM

29. Same concept as excommunication, nyet?

No pun intended. But it would appear that Mr Assange is officially a leper, whatever the line they feed to the marks.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:18 PM

32. If the death sentence is on the table for mlitary personnle speaking with assange, that means Bradle

Bradley Manning could face the death penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

77. Yes, you are mistaken.

The FOIA document actually clears Assange and WikiLeaks of being "the enemy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #77)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:40 PM

88. Absolutely.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:51 PM

10. Assange live at the UN in a few minutes.

Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:02 PM

17. Their on air

is the same as watching here on tv in the UK - channel 512 Sky. They were doing an article on the English Defence League when I checked and now its general world news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:08 PM

20. I'm keeping it on my screen while I wait. I wonder if Assange's

speech will change given this new info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:08 PM

21. http://rt.com/on-air/un-general-assembly-live/

gets you directly to the live feed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

23. That just defaults back to the news. I can't find a way to listen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:15 PM

28. cnn.com/live1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:22 PM

35. CNN's feed seems to f'd up, rt.com is much better n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:02 PM

61. Sorry, works fine for me

but I'm outside of the US, perhaps that's the reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:20 PM

34. On now here: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:35 PM

43. Shit, I missed it.

Thanks anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:54 PM

15. This is wrong.

Just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:07 PM

19. Huh. Imagine that. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:09 PM

22. Gee, his concerns about US intentions toward him appear to be well founded.

Imagine that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:12 PM

26. Who would have thought? How would anyone be expected to know?

 

Another day in the land of the free: We're #1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:17 PM

30. So basically, the minute he sets foot in Sweden,

he'll be taken and rendered to an undisclosed location in some obscure third country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:19 PM

33. We don't do that.

Eric Holder said so, so it must be true. Or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:27 PM

39. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to show you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:35 PM

82. No, because the article completely contradicts the headline.

The lack of charges mean WikiLeaks and Assange are not "the enemy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:17 PM

31. I really hate to say this, but most of us are considered enemies of the State

by somebody's definition. And far to many of those "somebodies" are considered members of the State.

The State, in a democracy means the People. What we have here is no democracy, not any more, and a great deal less than 70 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:59 PM

57. I proudly wear my "I AM AN ENEMY OF THE STATE" button every time I vote.

Have done so since 1974.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #31)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:01 AM

206. Yes, The Patriot Act Killed Democracy - Any Dissent Of That Law Makes One A Terrorist

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:22 PM

36. WTF - this is an outrage! Exposing crimes is not a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #36)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:02 AM

207. Under The Patriot Act One Is Only To Expose The Approved Types Of Crimes

State crimes are not in the approved category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:24 PM

37. Freedom of information, is there such a thing? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:25 PM

38. I have defended him numerous times here on DU, but my opinion is changing...

 

I am of the opinion that some military documents are not for our eyes.

Whether you want to accept it or not, remaining a force in the world is crucial to global stability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:31 PM

42. Maybe he committed a crime...

but how does this compare with the crimes of the previous administration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:52 PM

50. While I want to see him back in Sweden, I think this is a worrying development

I don't like countries declaring putting individuals who have never used violence, and who are arguably following the USA's principle of 'freedom of speech', into the same category as terrorists. It makes it look like he won't get a fair trial in the USA if he is ever taken there. It also makes me worry they could go a step further and decide they have to right to kill him. 'Enemy of the state' is a chilling phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #50)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:00 PM

58. It chills into the marrow, doesn't it? I worry

that drones will be used to take him out.

It just makes me sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #50)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:21 PM

66. Fortunately, the development didn't happen.

If you read the article, you will find that the US Government is actually doing the opposite of the headline.

Summary:

1) Analyst talks with WikiLeaks - and everyone agrees communication happened.
2) Investigation starts to see if information was leaked.
3) Investigation ends with no charges.

If WikiLeaks was "the enemy", then a crime was committed at step 1. The lack of charges means WikiLeaks isn't officially "the enemy". (Or the analyst involved has amazing political connections).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #66)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:32 PM

75. Quit spreading lies in my thread!!


"Almost the entire set of documents is concerned with the analyst's communications with people close to and supporters of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, with the worry that she would disclose classified documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz27cqcHz92

The analyst, according to the article, only communicated with those close to and supporters of Assange and Wikileaks, not directly with them. Legally, this would be an important distinction and perhaps the reason the investigation was dropped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #75)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:39 PM

87. Keep desperately trying to make an issue from the opposite result

The analyst, according to the article, only communicated with those close to and supporters of Assange and Wikileaks, not directly with them. Legally, this would be an important distinction and perhaps the reason the investigation was dropped.


Because WikiLeaks issues business cards and provides a complete roster of their members. They aren't a loose-knit group of like-minded people, so we can draw a nice clear line between "supporter" and "member". And we'd never stretch the definition of "member" when we're secretly out to destroy them.



Fact is, this FOIA document proves the opposite of the headline. But that doesn't fit into Assange's "They're all out to get me" story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #87)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:48 PM

93. Keep desperately trying to make an issue from the opposite result...

back at you!

Al Qaeda doesn't issue business cards either, but you can bet that there are thorough rosters of suspected members, and I'm sure there are subtle distinctions made when analysts communicate with those close to them.

Assange (allegedly) directly worked with Manning, therefore he is the one who is the principle focus by the military. If the analyst's information made it's way to Assange, that would make or break the case against the analyst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #93)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:56 PM

102. Apparently I'm going to have to explain sarcasm to you.

See, the government likes to use an expansive definition of "the enemy". So anyone remotely connected to a loose-knit group would be legally considered "the enemy". They'd exploit the lack of formal lines.

Whether that loose-knit group is Al Qaeda or WikiLeaks.

So the lack of charges indicate WikiLeaks isn't "the enemy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:04 PM

63. I have to disagree with that assesment.

 

"Global stability" sounds a lot like meddling in the worlds affairs while we don't allow it to be done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:04 PM

138. If the USA is a force for global stability, the Force is not with us is it?

I would expect that the rest of the world does not see the USA that way. Neither do I.
The USA is the greatest purveyer of terrorism in the world. That is why it fears the truth and has so many secrets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:30 PM

182. whoah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #38)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:07 AM

193. I would agree with you that some things need to be kept confidential -- others, not.

I applaud him for the majority of stuff they've done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:27 PM

40. So this means any journalist who challenges the state is a terrorist? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #40)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:37 PM

85. That is the message I'm getting out of this.

not a good development.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:29 PM

41. Enemies of the state.. they mean Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzo, Rice

 

...and the list goes on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:37 PM

45. Good ol' hope and change.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:38 PM

46. good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:44 PM

47. Well, where are the people that kept saying Sweden wasn't going to extradite him and

nothing for him to worry about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #47)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:56 PM

54. Thery're all celebrating the news

partying and praying for lightning bolts to hit the next occupy gathering, since they hate them too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spirochete (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:12 PM

65. Nah, we're busy trying to get people to actually read the article

'cause it turns out there was no such declaration. In fact, since there were no charges against the analyst, you can actually determine WikiLeaks and Assange are not considered "the enemy".

But boy that title sure gets lots of people worked up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #65)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:27 PM

71. Absolutely wrong...

but no doubt we will hear this repeated ad nauseum because if it gets repeated enough...

The charges were most likely dropped due to lack of evidence. It does not reflect on the status of Wikileaks or Assange whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #71)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:43 PM

92. Lack of evidence of leaking classified information. There's ample evidence for communication

with "the enemy"....if WikiLeaks and Assange were the enemy.

There's more than one crime being discussed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #92)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:54 PM

100. Nope, see my posts above...

there's only evidence (from the article at least) of communication with those close to the enemy, if Wikileaks and Assange are considered the enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #100)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:58 PM

106. Keep trying

The lack of formal membership means being "close to" is plenty legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #106)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:51 PM

168. See post #140 and answer it, if you dare n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:44 PM

48. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

is this supposed to make the president look tough or something? I don't need that. What the hell... a political thing?? Not??

so email peeping is a capitol crime....

Assange is an ass but the decision or statement, whatever, seems out of the blue. And if it creates a precedent I have a real problem with this.

The problem is that the government can't handle Internet security. That is all. So blame it on a scape goat and only those who really know what they are doing will be able to crack the US computer systems... China, Russia, the kid next door, etc. and we loose our right to challenge the government and/or it's infrastructure. No matter what they do to Assange, it still doesn't fix the real problem. We will be weaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #48)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:49 PM

95. I'll correct myself

I'm wrong an most of it... I'll leave it for reference of my mistaken knee-jerking.

But... my last paragraph stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:48 PM

49. Unconscionable

Unconscionable

un·con·scion·a·ble
    S
adjective
1.
not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.
2.
not in accordance with what is just or reasonable: unconscionable behavior.
3.
excessive; extortionate: an unconscionable profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:52 PM

51. Here we go again!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:55 PM

53. only

because he released dirt on this country that despoiled our squeaky clean 'democracy'. What he released was truth. what what's wrong with the truth. something is very wrong here. I do not agree with the designation. America is not squeaky clean. In fact with Abu grub prison and other tortures and atrocities, we can't hide the fact that something is always rotten in any government on this planet, these days and probably always will be until we have a true awakening of this planets inhabitants of the danger inherent in having these secrets that can destroy this whole planet in the name of some country's 'national security'. I long for some sanity from any leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:05 PM

64. The sad part is, nothing he released has caused any change.

All it did was get global informants killed, although he tried to black out as many names as possible.

It embarrassed some embassy officials for about a week, and now Assange has to fear the CIA and FSB (he pissed of the Russians as well) for the rest of his life. In order for me to take that kind of risk, I would want to be whistle-blowing something that benefited the world just a tad more.

Unless I am totally missing something here, I would love to be corrected (I like to read but what has all this hubbub actually done? Wikileaks was talking up their dirt, and now I bet most people don't even remember what it was.

IMO he should have waited for something better before burning up his sources and his safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #64)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:08 AM

209. WikiLeaks arguably

-helped start the "Arab Spring"
-made the new Iraqi gov't stand firm on troop withdrawal (ended the Iraq War)
-seeded the Occupy movement
-helped change the National conversation about our wars...

and more really. When you dispense hidden truths in pursuit of an ideal, the results are not always concrete or immediately apparent.

Ugh too early for cogent thought... need more cofffeeee.....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #64)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:51 AM

224. true

I have the sites info in my folders so I refer to them. Yep most don't even remember. You are right on the should held his cards longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:58 PM

56. Except, it didn't. This seems to be much ado, etc.

Article 104 is exceptionally broad. If the systems analyst had any contact with an "enemy," as defined by UCMJ, they'd be charged on the elements, period. The guy clearly had contact with WL, but charges weren't brought.

So WL isn't considered an enemy under UCMJ. Or perhaps the analyst is a flag officer's offspring.

One or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #56)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:24 PM

70. Pure speculation...


the analyst also denied leaking the information. Perhaps there wasn't sufficient evidence?

The article only states that the analyst communicated with those "close to" Assange and WL.

If anything, the Obama Admin. should now make a clarifying statement, particularly since this is now an issue brought before the UN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:30 PM

73. Leaking the information is irrelevant

Communicating with "the enemy" at all is a crime.

And everyone agrees communication with WikiLeaks happened.

So the lack of charges indicates WikiLeaks isn't "the enemy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #73)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:36 PM

84. So, according to your logic...

if I communicate with a supporter of Al Qaeda does that qualify me as communicating with the enemy? What if I'm not aware that they are "close to" Al Qaeda?

There are numerous reasons why the investigation was dropped and your conclusions are based on pure speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #84)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:51 PM

98. You hypothetical isn't the situation at hand.

if I communicate with a supporter of Al Qaeda does that qualify me as communicating with the enemy?


If you are subject to the UCMJ, yes.

What if I'm not aware that they are "close to" Al Qaeda?

Then it's not a crime. However, thats exactly the opposite of the situation at hand - the entire reason for the communication was their connection to WikiLeaks and Assange.

There are numerous reasons why the investigation was dropped and your conclusions are based on pure speculation.

Yes, there are potentially some technical reason that charges had to be dropped. But that's not all that's going on.

The analyst's security clearance was only suspended during the investigation. Yanking a security clearance doesn't require criminal-charges-level of proof. If there was only some technical reason why the analyst could not be charged, that clearance would be gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #98)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:08 PM

117. Then by your very own logic...

Wikileaks should be considered the enemy because they leak information to Al Qaeda.

I'm tired of arguing in circles with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #117)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:14 PM

119. You are still conflating two different charges, which is probably part of why you're wrong.

There's 2 different potential charges.

1) Leaking classified. Doesn't matter who the recipient is. WikiLeaks, New York Times, Russia, China, Al Queda, it's the same.

2) Communication with "the enemy". The recipient must be officially "the enemy", and the communicator must know they are "the enemy".

Once you separate those two in your head, this situation might become more clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #119)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:21 PM

125. Your argument is now clear as mud...

the recipient must be officially "the enemy"? Where is there evidence that the analyst communicated with Assange, either through an intermediary or otherwise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #119)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:34 PM

127. You've explained this quite well, I think.

Pity no one's listening.

Perhaps Assange threads should go under "Religion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:01 PM

59. Designed to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who dare expose the truth about US policy.


This ought to frighten and outrage all of us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:02 PM

60. Actually, the article doesn't say what you claim.

But hey, I'm sure overstating your case will be a good idea this time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:40 PM

89. Overstating MY case?

I merely posted an article and you seem to be disagreeing with the premise of the headline. You really need to take this up with the Sydney Morning Herald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:03 PM

62. That's fucking disturbing. What does that make me.... if I decide to send him $$$. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #62)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:22 PM

67. Someone who cares about their country. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #62)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:22 PM

68. Nothing you weren't yesterday. Because the headline doesn't match the contents of the article (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #68)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:28 PM

72. Quick, you'd better notify the Sydney Morning Herald...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:01 PM

110. Why? I can read their article and recognize the headline is click-bait. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:32 PM

76. Julian Assange

This is despicable.

The U.S. is totally out of control.

Their power trip and empire building agenda is a threat to the globe.

They are the bullies and terrorists of the globe.

They are endangering the citizens of the U.S. and citizens all over the planet.

As an American, there is little left to be proud of.

Free Bradley Manning
Free Julian Assange

Long Live Wikileaks
Long Live Anonymous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #76)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:58 PM

105. You forgot free the Walkers and

Aldridge Ames!

By the by Julian Assange is free just running scared of being tried and convicted of two counts of rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #105)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:26 PM

181. not rape. consensual sex. a condom broke. stop calling it rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #181)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:35 AM

216. One of the potental charges against him is rape, you refusing to accept that dosn't change anything

Penetrating somebody who is asleep is considered rape in many countries since they can't consent(the fact that he did it without a condom knowing she didn't want sex without protection in my eyes makes it worse).

note: The word 'charges' is not technically accurate since he can't be officially charged until he has been presented with the evidence, but for the sake of this debate i use the word since its the closest equivalent i can think of

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #181)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:04 AM

263. The charge on the EAW is rape. How does a sleeping woman consent

to sex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #181)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:52 PM

284. ... The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list

is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

78. Oh for god's fucking sake - that is insane.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:34 PM

80. It would be nice to see the actual declassified documents, rather than Dorling's interpretation

For example,

... Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death ...


may not actually mean that "WikiLeaks = enemy" but may rather mean that any military personnel, who hand over military documents to Wikileaks, will be presumed to have known that the leaked documents could thereby fall into enemy hands


... The Taliban has issued a chilling warning to Afghans, alleged in secret US military files leaked on the internet to have worked as informers for the Nato-led coalition, telling Channel 4 News "US spies" will be hunted down and punished ...

Taliban hunt Wikileaks outed Afghan informers
By Jonathan Miller
Updated on 30 July 2010
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #80)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:02 PM

114. Nah. You should know by now only the headline is enough.

It's red meat to the Assange worshipers. And it has nothing to do with Sweden but you cannot convince those who want to believe differently.

Assange could murder someone and they would believe he was only defending himself against shadowy forces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:49 PM

96. I don't read it the same way as the headlines imply. The context is that wikileaks is the conduit

to enemies because they (enemies) read wikileaks. That's different than wikileaks themselves being the actual enemies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #96)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:02 PM

113. Ok, now that's something that can be discussed...

but I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions as to why the case was dropped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #113)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:05 PM

115. You're doing plenty of jumping to conclusions as to why there was an investigation

Your claims of Assange as "Enemy of the State" requires leaps that aren't supported by the article. Only the sensational headline supports it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #115)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:10 PM

118. More lies...

my only claim in this thread is that the FOIA document provides evidence that Assange is subject to political persecution, and that was the main reason for my posting it. The headline is the headline, I would be violating rules if I did not post it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #118)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:20 PM

123. The FOIA document does not provide any such evidence.

What evidence is in the FOIA document implies the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #123)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:36 PM

128. The article provides the context...

by stating:

US Vice-President Joe Biden labelled Assange a "high-tech terrorist" in December 2010 and US congressional leaders have called for him to be charged with espionage.


That's CHARGED not just investigated.

I specifically pulled that out of the article to provide the basis for my argument that he is subject to political persecution. (In Europe, espionage is considered a political crime). The FOIA document describes a case where an analyst is suspected of leaking information, ultimately, to terrorists by way of Assange. You can argue all you want as to why the case was dropped and why the analyst did not lose their security clearance, but your argument is all based on speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #128)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:11 PM

144. Vice Presidents preside over the Senate and run nothing but their personal staffs. They are not

Deputy Commanders in Chief. Congresscritters have no authority over DoJ. What you read are just their opinions with nothing to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #144)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:48 PM

167. Oh really?

and what about the Head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Secretary of State, both of which are also high-level Democrats who have also recommended that Assange be prosecuted? You seem to be confusing Obama with Bush, who often operated in a vacuum. Biden also served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years and I'm absolutely sure that Obama chose him as VP for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #167)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:32 PM

248. The power to recommend is the power to express an opinion. Executive authority runs from

the President directly to Department Secretaries (or Attorney General for DoJ). Don't believe you can find a case where the Secretary of State or SSCI Chair prosecuted anyone. If you have such a case, please cite it. And no, this arrangement doesn't change based on which party holds the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #248)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:07 AM

260. Reuters has reported that the Obama Admin. is divided on the wisdom of prosecuting Assange...

I don't think that "divide" occurs in his head alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #123)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:10 AM

203. Here's the actual FOI document if you'd care to read it...


http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Assange-WikiLeaks-Enemy-USAF-FOI.pdf

apparently they tried to find out if the analyst had communicated with Assange but could find nothing. If she had, then the witch hunt would have been successful and they indeed would have taken away her security clearance and probably arrested her. The investigators only found that she suffered a crisis of conscience and the worst thing she did was attend meetings of like-minded individuals, and travelled to Assange's extradition trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #96)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:24 PM

276. goodbye right wing spook

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:58 PM

104. This will make the Republicans and the Conserva-Dems jump with joy. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:58 PM

107. Anyone want to lie to us and still pretend that the US Gov't has "no interest" in Assange?

Hmm? There are few on this board who were making that very argument all of two or three months ago.

Does anyone need further proof we've become a national security police state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #107)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:02 PM

112. How 'bout actually reading the article?

The headline is fantastic click bait.

The article doesn't support the headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #112)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:15 PM

121. Hey, Jeff - the article supports my comment. What happens to an analyst who loses his clearance?

He's fired. He can't work. He loses his income. It's how the Soviet Union dealt with refusniks. Do you think that's an appropriate penalty under the circumstances that the guy exercised his First Amendment Rights and marched in a protest? How about classifying Wikileaks as an "enemy organization" - do you approve of that, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #121)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:19 PM

122. This analyst's clearance wasn't lost.

All the article says is that it was temporarily suspended during the investigation. Since they fail to say it was permanently lost, that heavily implies they got the clearance back. Especially since the analyst is back at work.

How about classifying Wikileaks as an "enemy organization" - do you approve of that, too?

Despite the headline writer's best efforts, that isn't supported by the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #122)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:29 AM

212. You're reading that into it. That point is ambiguous.

The word "temporarily" isn't used. And, if you knew anything about security clearances, you would know that in this sort of thing where analyst loses clearance because of security reasons the standard procedure is to reassign the person to perform tasks not requiring a clearance in an unsecured area away from classified materials, effectively making that person redundant and unproductive. During the next review, the person is fired on those grounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #121)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:21 PM

124. *scratches head in wonder* Are you arguing that they should allow someone who

leaks classified material to keep their clearance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #124)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:23 AM

211. She (the analyst) didn't leak anything. Read the article.

She was merely accused of the "crime" of political association. You might also want to read the First Amendment, or is that now a "quaint document"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #211)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:50 AM

217. My apologies but I wasnt responding to that part but rather the part where you said

"He's fired. He can't work. He loses his income. It's how the Soviet Union dealt with refusniks. Do you think that's an appropriate penalty under the circumstances that the guy exercised his First Amendment Rights and marched in a protest? How about classifying Wikileaks as an "enemy organization" - do you approve of that, too?"

Seemed atleast to me at the time that you might have been arguing that people in general who have such a clearance should be allowed to keep it even if they leaked classified intel but then again at the time I was operating on 4 hours of sleep in a 48 hour period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:42 PM

129. A little fascism to go with dinner.

Our present selves would fit right in with the worst of our ancestors. (Okay, not the genocidal slave holders, but the supporters of the Alien & Sedition Acts, the supporters of Nixon's power abuses, the very recent supporters of Bush and all of the other people on the wrong side of history, when protecting power was more important than principles and people.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #129)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:24 AM

197. not all of us

I dont even trust people here or anywhere else ...moral compass first, and then all of the things that entails immediately after..power and partisan politics are way down the list. Politicians are just that..politicians. Just above aluminum siding salesmen at this juncture. The only difference is that if they are elected they swore an oath which incorporates moral and free values...like freedom of the press. For Gods sake, porn is everywhere..yet the truth can't be told about war atrocities? Give me a fuckin break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:44 PM

130. Wikileaks has released the document

http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Assange-WikiLeaks-Enemy-USAF-FOI.pdf

It says that a member of the US military was investigated for "COMMUNICATING WITH THE ENEMY -104-D" based on what she told someone about being depressed and and having met people who shared the same beliefs as her, being sympathetic to Bradley Manning, Assange/Wikileaks and anti-war groups.

As further reasons for suspicion are cited that she "allegedly visited the website WikiLeaks in violation of a Memorandum From the Undersecretary of Defense, dated 11 Jan 11, which violated Article 92, Failure to Obey, UCMJ", and traveled to London "to attend the extradition trial of JULIAN ASSANGE, founder of the WikLeaks website" where she met those people who, like her, "sympathized with PFC BRADLEY MANNING" and were anti-war. She also "posted lots of material concerning Wikileaks and ASSANGE" and read a lot about them on the web.

Several witnesses were interrogated over this.

So, she was apparently suspected to be "communicating with the enemy" because she was sympathetic with the cause of Wikileaks? It was probably feared she might have attempted to seek direct contacts or leak something, but that turned out to not have been the case. Had she done so, it would appear the "matter alleged" would have been found to be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #130)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:08 PM

140. So, where is jeff47 to look at this?

Skimming through the document I don't see where she (the SUBJECT of the investigation) communicated with anyone in the Wikileaks camp. She attended meetings of like-minded individuals supporting Assange and Manning, but apparently that's ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #130)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:47 AM

213. State terror nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #130)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:55 PM

245. even worse, she read about assange and wikileaks on the web. She read about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:17 PM

150. Time to call in the drones?

NDAA says OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:33 PM

158. "Enemy of state"?

Other than in the false headline of the opinion piece, that was never mentioned ONCE in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #158)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:11 PM

169. TOS!

St Julian!

Opinion piece!

It's past your bedtime and you're getting cranky, LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #169)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:16 PM

173. In case you missed it...

...here's the link:

www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #173)


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #174)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:25 PM

180. Must've struck a nerve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #158)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:15 AM

208. Try this then : US calls Assange 'enemy of state'

THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz27fDhRtYM

If you go into the link you'll find that all political news contains the term"opinion" - its just their manner of expressing things. Doesn't mean its pure opinion in the normal context of that word - you'll find the same in their main news section too.....I just checked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #208)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:20 AM

222. "THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States "...

That is a huge stretch and extrapolation of what the article really said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:18 PM

176. US calls Assange 'enemy of the police state'

There, I fixed it.

Yes, it is hyperbolic, but so is calling Assange an enemy of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #176)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:24 AM

202. ..enemy of our domestic enemies as per our Constitution.

May we invoke protection against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #202)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:51 AM

214. Enemy of state terrorism

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #176)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:47 AM

280. "Enemy of the Corporate State(s)" would also be more accurate.

Anyone who risks their life to expose corrupt violent actions (or intentions) ostensibly done in the name of "protecting democracy and freedom", but which are actually committed for the purpose of protecting multi-national corporate interests and protecting multi-national corporate profit sources is not my enemy.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.,




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:51 PM

189. this breaks my heart..Its humiliating and a violation of everything I thought my country was about

Who is doing this? Holder? the MIC? Obama? Why are they trying to destroy this man who should be lauded? The pain in the center of my gut because of this knows how very wrong this administration is about this. It's wrong, terribly wrong, and we all know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xiamiam (Reply #189)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:35 AM

227. Lauded for leaking classified information?

Fascinating ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #227)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:03 PM

231. lauded for being an extraordinary journalist and truth teller

or would you have preferred none of us know about international war atrocities? Would you prefer to be kept in the dark? What is fascinating is that controlling the press seems to be ok with some. Constitution first..its kept us out of trouble for a couple hundred + years..think its a pretty darned good guide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xiamiam (Reply #231)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:39 PM

232. Kept in the dark about what, exactly?

Some things should be kept confidential. For example, if the release of specific military information can endanger lives.

What good has Assange accomplished by releasing information on US military operations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #232)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

234. Nothing good

 

to US tyranny, military and economic imperialism and state terrorism. Nothing good to the despotic and kleptocratic oligarchy you call US governement, and which we, people of the Earth, call what it is: greatest threat to global security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #234)


Response to tama (Reply #234)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:55 PM

236. Describe the tyranny Assange has exposed, aside from his own assistance of the Taliban?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

... thousands of documents in the Wikileaks Afghan war log do identify Afghans by name, family, location, and ideology. The Taliban issued a warning to Afghans, alleged in the log to have worked as informers for the NATO-led coalition, that "US spies" will be hunted down and punished, ...

Asked what he thought of the dangers to those families created by the release of their personal information, Assange claimed that many informers in Afghanistan were "acting in a criminal way" by sharing false information with NATO authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #236)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:05 PM

238. Nah

 

Yankee go home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #238)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:08 PM

240. Thought so.

Yankee go home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #240)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:32 PM

241. Short for:

 

Please pretty please disband military imperialism, neocolonialism and increasing destruction of carrying capacity of our common planet. We really like those Occupy and other folks there who are joining rest of humanity in our search for another world in peaceful democratic manner. Those who speak with drones etc. and never really listen we don't like so much and wish they would stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #241)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:30 AM

258. Short for ..

Doesn't have an effing thing to do with Assange.

Endangering thousands of Afghan citizens, by outing them to the Taliban, is the opposite of supporting a peaceful agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #258)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:40 AM

259. Dear,

 

Repeating your "talking point" ad infinitum does not make it worthy of response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #259)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:28 PM

270. Uh huh. You let me know when you figure out what Assange's great contribution to humanity is.

I will not hold my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:13 AM

196. an interview with Assange today should clear up this article

http://rt.com/news/assange-wikileaks-us-state-enemy-072/

so for those of you who are claiming that the headline does not match the content, I would suggest you listen to todays interview with Assange

botom line, its absurd, as he says..and "counter to the values" that the US should be presenting to the world..

a free press? what a novel idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xiamiam (Reply #196)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:25 PM

265. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:26 AM

198. what the what!? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:37 AM

223. Scoop has a link to pdf of the actual FOIA release: it doesn't seem to show what Dorling claims:

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1209/AssangeWikiLeaksEnemyUSAFFOI.pdf

It seems to be some records from a (now-closed) 2011 investigation into a military person stationed in the UK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #223)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:21 AM

225. The dates actually sink Dorling's notion.

Interesting read. It appears WL didn't enter into the "enemy" bit at all.

The investigation began (21 April 2011) with an allegation of an Article 92 (failure to obey an order) violation; SecDef gave an order in January for the military not to visit Wikileaks, and it was alleged she did so in July. Upon clarification she'd only read summaries of WL docs in the Guardian and NYT, that part of the investigation was dropped.

The allegation of a 104 violation (aiding the enemy), dated 26 April, was a result of a separate report (dated 25 April) of the subject suffering a "breakdown" and telling a fellow airman she'd communicated with an unspecified "anti- military, anti-US" group.

During the subsequent interview (same day as the "breakdown" was reported) she makes clear it's Wikileaks she's talking about; turns out she's also suffering from depression, so further interviews with related personnel take place over the next two days. The case is ordered to be administratively closed on 27 April.

A superior officer was interviewed on the 28th, but the case was on its way to being closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #225)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:44 AM

228. People may not understand what the UCMJ "communicating with the enemy" offense

actually involves and why it is construed so broadly

In fact, the communication need not be directly to the enemy; and to prove the offense it is not necessary to prove that the enemy even received the information: it is enough that the information, which could help the enemy, be disseminated in some manner by which the enemy might receive it and use it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #228)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:16 PM

282. Please provide links as to how the offense is so broadly construed...


My reading of the actual UCMJ code is that any communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall be punishable:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #282)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:44 PM

283. Aiding the Enemy (UCMJ art. 104). Five separate acts are made punishable by this article ...

The final offense under this article is communication with the enemy. Any form of unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is prohibited, whatever the accused’s intent. The content or form of the communication is irrelevant, as long as the accused is actually aware that he is communicating with the enemy. Completion of the offense does not depend on the enemy’s use of the information or a return communication from the enemy to the accused; the offense is complete once the correspondence issues—either directly or indirectly—from the accused ...
<pdf link:> https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DocLibs/TJAGLCSDocLib.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/doclibs/tjaglcsdoclib.nsf/8400639488825BD385257549006019A4/Body/Chapter%209%20%20Criminal%20Law.pdf


(also available here: )
2006 Operational Law Handbook pp206ff
http://books.google.com/books?id=EBTul-duLEYC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=ucmj+104+communicating+with+enemy&source=bl&ots=Z4sOSpUF1L&sig=k4LvhgQ1C4TaDQuvxM8lqohbs2I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5m9nUMuBE4XU9ATrmQE&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ucmj%20104%20communicating%20with%20enemy&f=false


28. Article 104—Aiding the enemy
a. Text of statute.
Any person who ...
(2) without proper authority, knowingly ... gives intelligence to or communicates ... with ... the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

b. Elements ...
(5) Communicating with the enemy.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, c o m m u n i c a t e d , c o r r e s p o n d e d , o r h e l d i n t e r c o u r s e with the enemy; and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was c o m m u n i c a t i n g , c o r r e s p o n d i n g , o r h o l d i n g i n t e r course with the enemy.

c. Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.
(2) Enemy. For a discussion of “enemy,” see paragraph 23c(1)(b) ...
(6) Communicating with the enemy.
(a ) Nature of the offense . No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly ...

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), 2012 Edition (c.p326/884 identified in doc as pp IV-41 and IV-42)
<pdf link:> http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf


(also available here: )
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104—Aiding the enemy
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #283)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:00 PM

285. So, in the context of this sub-thread..

what point are you trying to make? Clearly the allegation under investigation is "communicating with the enemy". By providing information to Wikileaks, it could have ended up in the real enemy's hands, so Wikileaks is somehow being tied to an enemy, whether it be Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Is your point simply that Assange is not the designated "Enemy of the State", he is merely a conduit for communication with the real enemy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #225)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:01 PM

237. You seem to be glossing over much of the relevent information...

most of the report covers her obsession with Assange and how she felt the military was in the wrong regarding the treatment of Bradley Manning. Obviously they were concerned about her passing information to Wikileaks, there's no other way to intrepret this. In this context "the enemy" can only mean Wikileaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #237)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:18 PM

243. Nonsense. Look at the charges, and the dates.

They were concerned she was visiting the website; she cleared herself of that. Then she had a breakdown and someone overheard her talking about communicating with anti-US groups, and reported it.

Wikileaks came up as being the group she meant AFTER the 104 investigation began, not before. And the 104 charges were never brought -- because Wikileaks, apparently, isn't considered an enemy under UCMJ.

If you ignore the timeline, of course, you can infer whatever you want. But you'd be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #243)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:56 PM

246. Two errors in your theory

1. Wikileaks never "came up as being the group she meant".

2. The allegation that she was visiting the Wikileaks website is not dated, it is merely mentioned as reason for the investigation which was initiated on 21 July. January 11 2011 is the date when the mentioned Memorandum was issued: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/wl-notice.pdf


So, the main reason for the investigation is that she allegedly visited the Wikileaks website, in addition she is considered unstable and found to be sympathetic with Bradley Manning and Wikileaks.

What enemy is she suspected to have communicated with? Only two possibilities: either Wikileaks is considered "the enemy", or, by stretching the definition of "communicating", someone who can access material leaked to Wikileaks and provided by them to the public.

In which case Wikileaks might not be the considered the "enemy" directly, but surely as an organisation that provides material support for such an enemy. As we can see here daily, that is exactly what some Americans think. And why Assange fears that some day the US might seek to extradite him and throw him in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #246)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:46 PM

266. Here is Truthdig's and Glenn Greenwald's take on it...

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/assange_potential_enemy_of_the_state_speaks_to_un_20120927/

That crime carries a potential death penalty, and its inclusion in an investigation into contact with WikiLeaks suggests that the government now views anyone who publishes classified material that could be seen by anyone considered an enemy as an enemy themselves. The list of candidates for enemy status extends far beyond Assange. Any media outlet, including The New York Times, which has published far more sensitive secrets than WikiLeaks, would become a potential enemy of the state. Glenn Greenwald explains:

It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of “aiding the enemy” or “communicating with the enemy” even if no information is passed directly to the “enemy” and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it “indirectly” informs the enemy.

The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with “aiding” or “communicating with the enemy” by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn’t that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information - whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet - a capital offense: treason or a related crime?


Bloomberg and the Atlantic Wire have also picked up this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:30 AM

226. Which is accurate.

I don't get the Assange worship, here. He's a narcissist who happens to have a tech background, and doesn't seem to care who is harmed as a result of leaking classified information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:50 AM

230. Personally speaking, I was put on many "lists" of political enemies of (fill in the blank) about 49

years ago. I'm what democracy looks like, 99%er here. Free Bradley Manning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:29 PM

244. I'm very sad about the news

I feel Biden is making the wrong choice here

I don't think it was necessary to do this especially the time right before he speaks to the UN

It I feel shows US weakness and DESPERATION

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #244)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:49 PM

247. Biden likely made the statement a couple of years ago...

along with Clinton and Feinstein and a host of much more aggressive statements made by Republicans. No one has retracted their statements, but now, it seems, a lot of DUers are pretending that the US has no interest in going after Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:38 PM

249. The article does not cite or link to anything

There is nothing there to prove their assertions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:04 PM

250. Well, then... the "US" must be full of shit...

Start sighting something that threatens us, and I might think differently. Until then, everyone, including Joe Biden can pound salt up their ass on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:30 PM

256. Eisenhower warned us about those military-industrial complex FUCKS.

 

The MIC can go to hell and die. And NOT drag the rest of us AMERICANS down with it. Thank you very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:55 PM

269. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 03:22 PM

281. Outrageous and indefensible. Wake the hell up, America.

And just as offensive is the predictable, relentless swarm of propaganda and shilling for the growing corporate authoritarian state, from the very same few voices as always. Now we witness the shameless, utterly predictable shift from denying that the government is persecuting Assange to rationalizing/justifying the persecution.

Of course the shameless spin continues, because these egregious acts by our government threaten to open even more eyes to what our government really has become, even under a Democratic President, and how ruthless the authoritarianism can become when unflattering secrets are revealed.

Any story that threatens to reveal the collusion between government and the one percent, and especially stories that reveal the corrupt use of government to punish and silence those who would expose their collusion, will always be urgently spun like this for public consumption.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread