Diplomatic immunity WTF!

[Stubby]

wow he makes the most wanted
for suspected rape

Julian Assange still on most-wanted list despite asylum decision: Interpol

I mean come on.
You talk about toadies. Interpol is who's bitch to make a suspected rapist appear on the most wanted list? Slow crime year in Europe?

[ScottL]

From all the sources I'm reading (and I'm more than willing to link if requested) the military has even come out and said he has not named informants, but has listed operations 3 years or older. It appears they've made a concerted effort to protect on-going operations and individuals. I'd also note that no source has been provided or likely will be provided of any death from the release. I've looked, left and right, no data saying anyone died, just bloggers and sensationalism.

As a matter of law, he does not answer to the U.S. and as such, I see no reason to be extradited. I agree it is a dog and pony show and would set terrible precedent if he were "retrieved." While I don't think he's a particularly agreeable person, very likely a worm at best, he has done nothing illegal. Move along here, nothing to see.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, can you cite where innocent people were killed because of him. When this story was news, it was confirmed that although they were leaking information, they weren't leaking current information that would effect any on-going operations. They were quite careful about that aspect of the release.

You really ought to get better news sources than the Propaganda arm of the Democrat party. (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.)




http://www.anorak.co.uk/267106/politici ... ting.html/

http://registan.net/index.php/2010/07/3 ... d-afghans/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks- ... sad-agent/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2165339/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 ... jean-lopez

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawki ... n-assange/



Yes, Wikileaks subsequently changed their policy so as to redact the names of people who might be killed because Wikileaks had revealed their identity. By the time they had done this, the horse had already left the barn.

The first link simply states 13,000 killed as fact without citing any source(s) and then consequently links back to itself. I'm really looking for cited data as I'm not going to take a blog's word. I went through the rest of the links and they appear to also do the same (link backs, claims, no citing of anyone). The closest was an individual whose name was released but sadly this individual had died 2 years prior to the release, all other named individuals have been confirmed a live.

I take it you didn't actually read what they said then? That 13,000 killed (I thought it said 1,300.) was the result of Wikileaks influence on the Kenyan Elections.

Perhaps a link to the Guardian (not a blog, but a Major Brit Newspaper) is more to your liking? Had you actually read the above link which you referred to as a "blog" you would have noticed it's source was not itself, but quotes from Julian Assange taken from the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/au ... fghanistan

I'm leaving the benefit of the doubt here because I could definitely see where the release of such information could result in such terrible issues, I'm just lacking any sources of data.

No, you are refusing to acknowledge the obvious because it is politically unpalatable to you (That people should have died as a result of some asshole playing god with military secrets.) and because no one has dropped a body on your doorstep. Even Assange himself has said they changed their procedure as a result of people pointing out the obvious; that informants would be killed as a result of what he had done.

Maybe. Although it doesn't mean that there aren't hard questions to answer. What about these named sources? Might he have endangered their lives?

"If there are innocent Afghans being revealed, which was our concern, which was why we kept back 15,000 files, then of course we take that seriously."

But what if it's too late?

"Well, we will review our procedures."

Too late for the individuals, I say. Dead.

If Assange doesn't believe people will die as a result of what he leaked, why did he change procedure?


Then there is the other salient point. You f*ck with us, you die. He needs to be droned on that basis alone. Big league boys need to step on bugs when they appear. If they don't, people start mistaking them for little league, which results in future dangerous consequences. See John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter for how this works out.

[tomclarke]

I take it you didn't actually read what they said then? That 13,000 killed (I thought it said 1,300.) was the result of Wikileaks influence on the Kenyan Elections.

That's like saying the few voters that swung the last US presidential election but two in favour of GWB were guilty of killing 100,000 in Iraq.

You want to drone them too?

[Diogenes]

You really ought to get better news sources than the Propaganda arm of the Democrat party. (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.)


http://www.anorak.co.uk/267106/politici ... ting.html/

http://registan.net/index.php/2010/07/3 ... d-afghans/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks- ... sad-agent/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2165339/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 ... jean-lopez

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawki ... n-assange/

You mean like propaganda arm of the republican party?

They don't have a propaganda arm, if anything all they got is a little stub. Point to me any nationwide network whose employees are 90% Republican.

Democrats have Cannons while Republicans have pea shooters. Democrats have an Air Force, while republicans have (at most) hot air balloons. What kind of asinine statement is it to compare the trivial Republican media influence on the electorate with that of Democrats, who have total control over All movie Production, all Television entertainment production, All Network News sources with a slight exception for Fox (Which still employes 80% Democrats for it's staff) and Most Newspapers and the vast bulk of magazines in the nation?

Are you on Drugs? If Republicans had 1/4th of what the Democrats own in terms of Media assets, the Democrat party couldn't win another election anywhere. It is only by dent of their protecting themselves through media blackouts of damaging stories (Fast and Furious, Or Obama at that Kahlidi party e.g.) that they keep the public ignorant and stupefied.

The Media companies and the Democrats are actual family. They have blood relatives common to both organizations. I don't have time to list all the ties by blood and marriage between Democrats and everyone who controls access to television, but there is substantial and astonishing degree of overlap.

Apart from that, of all the sources I listed (through a quick google search) only the last two are from sources known to me to be right wing. National Review has long been considered to possess established legitimacy, so I don't know why you would make an issue of it.


Don't talk to me about the Propaganda arm of the Republican Party. It is the Democrats who have the big D*ck in this area.

[Diogenes]

Many informants died due to that a$$hat.

References, please (and not the BS ones that Diogenes posted).

Nobody gives a shit what you think. Perhaps if your name was on the list you would have a teeny tiny slight comprehension of the problem. (Though given your level of density, I should not be surprised if you remained astonishingly naive.)

[ScottL]

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,"

Well darn so they leaked information pointing out a corrupt gov't. which resulted in a revolt (good for their people) and 1300 people died. Is your preference that the Kenyan people stay under a corrupt go't. or fight for change? These facts are exceedingly skewed. Your first link doesn't mention that why 1300 people were killed (it was the revolt, not the leak).

As for Republican's not having a propaganda arm? Are you kidding, the easiest one to name is Fox News, but there are several others. I've come to the conclusion you are dellusional Diogenes. Any conversation with you is futile, I think I'll leave you to your faith and me to my facts.

[Diogenes]

From all the sources I'm reading (and I'm more than willing to link if requested) the military has even come out and said he has not named informants, but has listed operations 3 years or older. It appears they've made a concerted effort to protect on-going operations and individuals. I'd also note that no source has been provided or likely will be provided of any death from the release. I've looked, left and right, no data saying anyone died, just bloggers and sensationalism.

As a matter of law, he does not answer to the U.S. and as such, I see no reason to be extradited. I agree it is a dog and pony show and would set terrible precedent if he were "retrieved." While I don't think he's a particularly agreeable person, very likely a worm at best, he has done nothing illegal. Move along here, nothing to see.

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.

http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murder ... e19250.htm


Part of the difficulty in finding people killed by Wikileaks is the fact that the vast bulk of links coming from a search on this issue are Wikileaks allegations of how many people were killed in the Iraq war.

It is virtually impossible to shift out all that crap from the nuggets being sought.

Couple that with the fact that in the areas of the world where people are being killed as a result of Wikileaks, there are few people noting the fact, amid so much death from all other causes.

[Diogenes]

From all the sources I'm reading (and I'm more than willing to link if requested) the military has even come out and said he has not named informants, but has listed operations 3 years or older. It appears they've made a concerted effort to protect on-going operations and individuals. I'd also note that no source has been provided or likely will be provided of any death from the release. I've looked, left and right, no data saying anyone died, just bloggers and sensationalism.

As a matter of law, he does not answer to the U.S. and as such, I see no reason to be extradited. I agree it is a dog and pony show and would set terrible precedent if he were "retrieved." While I don't think he's a particularly agreeable person, very likely a worm at best, he has done nothing illegal. Move along here, nothing to see.

Here's another right wing source for you.


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... nformants/

[Diogenes]

I take it you didn't actually read what they said then? That 13,000 killed (I thought it said 1,300.) was the result of Wikileaks influence on the Kenyan Elections.

That's like saying the few voters that swung the last US presidential election but two in favour of GWB were guilty of killing 100,000 in Iraq.

Oh yes, that is exactly the same thing. Anyone who thinks so has not a level of understanding worth the time to contradict.

[Diogenes]

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,"

Well darn so they leaked information pointing out a corrupt gov't. which resulted in a revolt (good for their people) and 1300 people died. Is your preference that the Kenyan people stay under a corrupt go't. or fight for change? These facts are exceedingly skewed. Your first link doesn't mention that why 1300 people were killed (it was the revolt, not the leak).

So when it comes to rebutting you actually go to the trouble of reading something?

My first link has embedded in it very early a link to the Guardian, from which they got that information. I regard your lack of notice of the Guardian link as further evidence that you just gloss over something without really bothering to comprehend what information is contained within it.

At the Guardian Link, Julian Assange himself admits that it was his leaks which resulted in those 1,300 deaths, but he shrugs it off as someone who would say "if you are going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs." He figures that since 40,000 children die of Malaria (Thank you Rachel Carson. Millions of Dead people appreciate your efforts at eradicating DDT) then what do the lives of 1,300 who died as a result of his leaks matter?

"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

How about this argument? Instead of throwing out all the information and creating a stampede of death and political killings, could he? Should he? Have perhaps sent a slow drip of information to the newspapers in Kenya, rather than provoking an overreaction which resulted in the 1,300 deaths, and the 350,000 displacements?

The best evidence that what he did was irresponsible was to point out how the benefits could have been accomplished without the deaths and displacements. Why provoke a nation to unreasoned anger, when the corruption could have been exposed slowly in a controlled fashion?

Julius Assange lit a forest fire, and rationalized it because it would have burned anyway.

As for Republican's not having a propaganda arm? Are you kidding, the easiest one to name is Fox News, but there are several others.

You simply do not understand. Fox News is hardly conservative. Sure, they are more conservative than the OTHER networks, but that is a relative scale. They still employ 80% Democrats, and 100% Union employees to staff their network. Shepard Smith is as Liberal as a three dollar bill. Bill Reilly is an asshole moderate/rino/opportunist. They have a few conservative anchors but even ABC has Jake Tapper, Brit Hume, and John Stossel. (The only people over there who are worth a shit in my opinion.)

A News Company would have to employ 90% Republicans with >70% of them being John Brown style conservative Fanatics to even begin to approximate the degree to which the Usual news networks are leftist extremists.

If every TV anchor at Fox news sounded like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, you would have a better idea of what an actual conservative network would look like on the air. Fox has spiked numerous stories which would have seriously hurt Obama. The Kahlidi story was spiked, the funny business surrounding his American citizenship status has never been covered, Fast and Furious is not being made clear to the public, the online illegal campaign contributions to the Obama campaign was never made known to the public, The GM and Chrysler dealership scandal, Solyndra, Global Financial, and a whole host of other stories are redacted from public consciousness because Fox is not a conservative network, it is just less liberal than the others.

I've come to the conclusion you are dellusional Diogenes. Any conversation with you is futile, I think I'll leave you to your faith and me to my facts.

I don't think you know what facts are. I perceive you need to grow some older and wiser before you start getting a clue. Fortunately for you, California is soon going to teach you a lot of life lessons.

[MSimon]

Consistent behavior for someone raised like an animal, which is what The Family were doing with kids.

I ran into one of them in Seattle in the early 70s (same Family?) the guy promised me girls and showed me a 55 gal drum of tolulene - to get legally high.

I was plenty crazy back then (maybe still am) but not that nuts.

[MSimon]

Open Secrets:

WW2 in the Pacific was an opium war - America won that one

Terrorists Dealing Drugs - ah opium again

Running The Laundry well some one has to profit from all that Drug Money - American and Brit banks.

Market Correction America is helping one cartel against another - my guess is that we are helping the one that uses American banks.

[choff]

Consistent behavior for someone raised like an animal, which is what The Family were doing with kids.

I ran into one of them in Seattle in the early 70s (same Family?) the guy promised me girls and showed me a 55 gal drum of tolulene - to get legally high.

I was plenty crazy back then (maybe still am) but not that nuts.

The Santiniketan Park Association, great place to raise your kids up.



The chil­dren were fre­quently dosed with the psy­chi­atric drugs Anaten­sol, Diazepam, Haloperi­dol, Largac­til, Mogadon, Serepax, Ste­lazine, Tegre­tol or Tofranil[4]. On reach­ing ado­les­cence they were com­pelled to undergo an ini­ti­a­tion involv­ing LSD[13]: while under the influ­ence of the drug the child would be left in a dark room, alone apart from vis­its by Hamilton-Byrne or one of the psy­chi­a­trists from the group[4].

[MSimon]

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

Queen Anne's Hill - Seattle