Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

[mark45y]

Bob Beckel is a well known liberal, but he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange and he makes a case for his position that is not to be easily dismissed. Watch the video.

Liberal you say? A man who calls for an illegal assasination on National Television (in front of many children) is considered a Liberal in your eyes....in your country?

Watch the video?

Who do you think I am and stand for?

"..he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange..."

That's the general consensus your Government want the Americans and rest of the world believe that indeed. Some still believe the lies of their Governments and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

Tell me, the deaths they fear, are those soldiers fighting in countries where the war was forced upon those countries...? Unneccessary wars, started by lies of the same Government ?

How many fine young soldiers died already because of those lies by your government UG ?

I'm sure you kow how to handle Google to find out but et me help you: 58.000 plus/minus.....in Iraq alone; because of lies + 2 million soldiers and civilians in Iraq and I'm not counting Afghanistan yet.

Where's the outcry from the American parents, brothers and sisters, friends about the loss of their loved ones in wars they didn't ask for but were lied upon ?

Tell me.

LaoPo

Are you that ill informed about American public opinion? A couple of years ago 63% of Americans thought it a mistake to send troops there. Bob Beckel is a liberal as opposed to conservative politician. Google it. He has a long history of being a liberal and working for liberal/Democratic administrations. The American public is also well informed about WikiLeaks harming America and our Armed Forces.

See graph.

[Ulysses G.]

Judge,Jury and executioner.................how sad!!!

Assange has already admitted putting the stolen documents on the Internet. Other than convoluted, self-serving justifications, he has no reasonable defense.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[SergeiY]

Killing Assange could be the right course of action IF the leaked material could really threaten the lives of many of the "good people" out there.

But I seriously doubt this is the case.

The diplomatic cables and other stuff leaked is not highly secret material, and as such, it probably already has found its way into the archives of every significant intelligence service in this world.

The good guys know the facts, the bad guys do too...

How do you know that the 'bad guys' are privy to 'highly secret material'?

But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member “commission” after the Afghan documents were posted “to find about people who are spying.” He said the Taliban had a “wanted” list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1

Wikileaks hounded?

Published on 4 December 2010

Reporters Without Borders condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables. The organization is also concerned by some of the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

Earlier this week, after the publishing several hundred of the 250.000 cables it says it has in its possession, WikiLeaks had to move its site from its servers in Sweden to servers in the United States controlled by online retailer Amazon. Amazon quickly came under pressure to stop hosting WikiLeaks from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and its chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, in particular.

After being ousted from Amazon, WikiLeaks found a refuge for part of its content with the French Internet company OVH. But French digital economy minister Eric Besson today said the French government was looking at ways to ban hosting of the site. WikiLeaks was also recently dropped by its domain name provider EveryDNS. Meanwhile, several countries well known for for their disregard of freedom of expression and information, including Thailand and China, have blocked access to cablegate.wikileaks.org.

This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.

Meanwhile, two Republican senators, John Ensign and Scott Brown, and an independent Lieberman, have introduced a bill that would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence agency informants. This could facilitate future prosecutions against WikiLeaks and its founder. But a criminal investigation is already under way and many U.S. politicians are calling vociferously for Assange’s arrest.

Reporters Without Borders can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.

We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.

Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of “Net neutrality,” according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online

http://en.rsf.org/wikileaks-hounded-04-12-2010,38958.html

[Ulysses G.]

Could Reporters Without Borders be worried about loosing the source of all these titillating documents which they are using to push up sales? Self-interest is a powerful motivator.

[KhunAussie52]

Bob Beckel is a well known liberal, but he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange and he makes a case for his position that is not to be easily dismissed. Watch the video.

Liberal you say? A man who calls for an illegal assasination on National Television (in front of many children) is considered a Liberal in your eyes....in your country?

Watch the video?

Who do you think I am and stand for?

"..he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange..."

That's the general consensus your Government want the Americans and rest of the world believe that indeed. Some still believe the lies of their Governments and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

Tell me, the deaths they fear, are those soldiers fighting in countries where the war was forced upon those countries...? Unneccessary wars, started by lies of the same Government ?

How many fine young soldiers died already because of those lies by your government UG ?

I'm sure you kow how to handle Google to find out but et me help you: 58.000 plus/minus.....in Iraq alone; because of lies + 2 million soldiers and civilians in Iraq and I'm not counting Afghanistan yet.

Where's the outcry from the American parents, brothers and sisters, friends about the loss of their loved ones in wars they didn't ask for but were lied upon ?

Tell me.

LaoPo

Are you that ill informed about American public opinion? A couple of years ago 63% of Americans thought it a mistake to send troops there. Bob Beckel is a liberal as opposed to conservative politician. Google it. He has a long history of being a liberal and working for liberal/Democratic administrations. The American public is also well informed about WikiLeaks harming America and our Armed Forces.

See graph.

International public opinion is largely opposed to the war in Afghanistan. A 47-nation global survey of public opinion conducted in June 2007 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found considerable opposition to the U.S. and NATO military operations in Afghanistan. In only 2 out of the 47 countries was there a majority that favoured keeping military troops in Afghanistan - Israel (59%) and Kenya (60%).^[1] On the other hand, in 41 of the 47 countries pluralities want U.S. and NATO military troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.^[1] In 32 out of 47 countries clear majorities want U.S. and NATO military troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Majorities in 7 out of 12 NATO member countries want troops withdrawn as soon as possible.^[1][2]

October 2010 United States: Americans are divided over the war in Afghanistan with 47% supporting and 45% opposing, a statistical tie within the poll's 3.1% margin of error. Likewise, 37% of Americans think the war was a mistake, and 37% thought it was not. Half of Americans, 51%, say they do not know what the nine-year war is about, while 49% claim they do. Less than one-in-five, 19%, of Americans expect a clear military victory for the U.S.-led forces, while nearly half, 46%, expect the Taliban to have some kind of role in the Afghan government as an outcome of the war: the plurality 28% expect a negotiated settlement that gives the Taliban a small role in government, 12% expect a negotiated settlement that gives the Taliban a significant role, and 6% expect the Taliban will defeat the foreign military forces in Afghanistan. The Angus Reid poll was conducted October 15-17,

September 2009 - United States: Growing American opposition to the war in Afghanistan reached an all-time high, while support for the U.S. war fell to an all-time low in September. A record majority 58% of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan, while only 39% support the U.S. war. The CNN - Opinion Research poll was conducted September 11–13,

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Afghanistan

I guess the vote has been taken!!!!!

Edited December 8, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[JUDAS]

Yep. Self interest is indeed a powerful motivator.

[mark45y]

Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of “Net neutrality,” according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online

I assume they mean legal content. Otherwise kiddie porn or snuff videos would be OK.

[TAWP]

Comedy - someone posting a news-article from 10-24, saying that 'now' some organizations are worried about the Afghan files. Seriously people, if you are going to argue this topic, be up to date. There is already, including on this forum, posts linking and summering news-posts posted LATER than that date saying that no links between deaths and releases of the Afghan files has been found...

[TAWP]

Killing Assange could be the right course of action IF the leaked material could really threaten the lives of many of the "good people" out there.

But I seriously doubt this is the case.

The diplomatic cables and other stuff leaked is not highly secret material, and as such, it probably already has found its way into the archives of every significant intelligence service in this world.

The good guys know the facts, the bad guys do too...

How do you know that the 'bad guys' are privy to 'highly secret material'?

When over 2 million people have access to it and a low-ranking soldier are able to copy it all and give to WikiLeaks...do someone really think China does not have a copy of everything already?

I mean...really?

[WarpSpeed]

Killing Assange could be the right course of action IF the leaked material could really threaten the lives of many of the "good people" out there.

But I seriously doubt this is the case.

The diplomatic cables and other stuff leaked is not highly secret material, and as such, it probably already has found its way into the archives of every significant intelligence service in this world.

The good guys know the facts, the bad guys do too...

How do you know that the 'bad guys' are privy to 'highly secret material'?

But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people's lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

Assange will very much deserve the sentence that he will very likely receive.

Yep, Americans in comfy offices are the last ones who will pay for his irresponsibility and immoral conduct.. He's helping no one, it's all a self righteous, self serving delusion on his part....

Edited December 8, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[mark45y]

Bob Beckel is a well known liberal, but he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange and he makes a case for his position that is not to be easily dismissed. Watch the video.

Liberal you say? A man who calls for an illegal assasination on National Television (in front of many children) is considered a Liberal in your eyes....in your country?

Watch the video?

Who do you think I am and stand for?

"..he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange..."

That's the general consensus your Government want the Americans and rest of the world believe that indeed. Some still believe the lies of their Governments and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

Tell me, the deaths they fear, are those soldiers fighting in countries where the war was forced upon those countries...? Unneccessary wars, started by lies of the same Government ?

How many fine young soldiers died already because of those lies by your government UG ?

I'm sure you kow how to handle Google to find out but et me help you: 58.000 plus/minus.....in Iraq alone; because of lies + 2 million soldiers and civilians in Iraq and I'm not counting Afghanistan yet.

Where's the outcry from the American parents, brothers and sisters, friends about the loss of their loved ones in wars they didn't ask for but were lied upon ?

Tell me.

LaoPo

Are you that ill informed about American public opinion? A couple of years ago 63% of Americans thought it a mistake to send troops there. Bob Beckel is a liberal as opposed to conservative politician. Google it. He has a long history of being a liberal and working for liberal/Democratic administrations. The American public is also well informed about WikiLeaks harming America and our Armed Forces.

See graph.

International public opinion is largely opposed to the war in Afghanistan. A 47-nation global survey of public opinion conducted in June 2007 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found considerable opposition to the U.S. and NATO military operations in Afghanistan. In only 2 out of the 47 countries was there a majority that favoured keeping military troops in Afghanistan - Israel (59%) and Kenya (60%).^[1] On the other hand, in 41 of the 47 countries pluralities want U.S. and NATO military troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.^[1] In 32 out of 47 countries clear majorities want U.S. and NATO military troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Majorities in 7 out of 12 NATO member countries want troops withdrawn as soon as possible.^[1][2]

October 2010 United States: Americans are divided over the war in Afghanistan with 47% supporting and 45% opposing, a statistical tie within the poll's 3.1% margin of error. Likewise, 37% of Americans think the war was a mistake, and 37% thought it was not. Half of Americans, 51%, say they do not know what the nine-year war is about, while 49% claim they do. Less than one-in-five, 19%, of Americans expect a clear military victory for the U.S.-led forces, while nearly half, 46%, expect the Taliban to have some kind of role in the Afghan government as an outcome of the war: the plurality 28% expect a negotiated settlement that gives the Taliban a small role in government, 12% expect a negotiated settlement that gives the Taliban a significant role, and 6% expect the Taliban will defeat the foreign military forces in Afghanistan. The Angus Reid poll was conducted October 15-17,

September 2009 - United States: Growing American opposition to the war in Afghanistan reached an all-time high, while support for the U.S. war fell to an all-time low in September. A record majority 58% of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan, while only 39% support the U.S. war. The CNN - Opinion Research poll was conducted September 11–13,

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Afghanistan

I guess the vote has been taken!!!!!

So what is your point? You said, "I guess the vote has been taken!!!!!" What do you mean?

[mark45y]

Killing Assange could be the right course of action IF the leaked material could really threaten the lives of many of the "good people" out there.

But I seriously doubt this is the case.

The diplomatic cables and other stuff leaked is not highly secret material, and as such, it probably already has found its way into the archives of every significant intelligence service in this world.

The good guys know the facts, the bad guys do too...

How do you know that the 'bad guys' are privy to 'highly secret material'?

When over 2 million people have access to it and a low-ranking soldier are able to copy it all and give to WikiLeaks...do someone really think China does not have a copy of everything already?

I mean...really?

Is China the bad guy? Do they supply the Taliban? How about blowing up buildings in the US? China? Wow, I didn't know that?

[WarpSpeed]

Judge,Jury and executioner.................how sad!!!

Assange has already admitted putting the stolen documents on the Internet. Other than convoluted, self-serving justifications, he has no reasonable defense.

Yeah, wondering what more evidence he required myself?

[JUDAS]

It would be laughable if it wasn't so potentially serious. We have calls for Assange to be executed without out trial etc for publishing these documents. IF these docs are so sensitive, such a danger to life and national security, then why was access so d@mn easy for hundreds of thousands if not millions of govt employees. Those calling for drastic action against Assange should also be looking a lot closer to home, to the individuals responsible for allowing such widespread access to docs that threaten national security.

[SergeiY]

Comedy - someone posting a news-article from 10-24, saying that 'now' some organizations are worried about the Afghan files. Seriously people, if you are going to argue this topic, be up to date. There is already, including on this forum, posts linking and summering news-posts posted LATER than that date saying that no links between deaths and releases of the Afghan files has been found...

yep and that went without checking what amnesty international and reporters without borders actually saying about the issue.

And the biggest evidence for the accusation wikileaks puts life on risk is some mysterious Taliban dude who made some telephone calls.

Death penalty for the exposed war crimes is probably the biggest danger for life if is there any. But the death penalties will be a sentence in a legal process according to the law. Nothing what you could wikileaks blame for.

[mark45y]

It would be laughable if it wasn't so potentially serious. We have calls for Assange to be executed without out trial etc for publishing these documents. IF these docs are so sensitive, such a danger to life and national security, then why was access so d@mn easy for hundreds of thousands if not millions of govt employees. Those calling for drastic action against Assange should also be looking a lot closer to home, to the individuals responsible for allowing such widespread access to docs that threaten national security.

Because it is easy to steal something is hardly a defense for stealing. The Falang was drunk and asleep so I stole his watch, cell phone and 300,000 baht. I guess in your scenario we should shoot the Falang.

[TAWP]

Are you guys for real? So blinded by ridiculous patriotism that you will fluster and blunder out any weird response to try to get some insult across and proudly proclaim that in your reality things are different and justified?

[mark45y]

Comedy - someone posting a news-article from 10-24, saying that 'now' some organizations are worried about the Afghan files. Seriously people, if you are going to argue this topic, be up to date. There is already, including on this forum, posts linking and summering news-posts posted LATER than that date saying that no links between deaths and releases of the Afghan files has been found...

yep and that went without checking what amnesty international and reporters without borders actually saying about the issue.

And the biggest evidence for the accusation wikileaks puts life on risk is some mysterious Taliban dude who made some telephone calls.

Death penalty for the exposed war crimes is probably the biggest danger for life if is there any. But the death penalties will be a sentence in a legal process according to the law. Nothing what you could wikileaks blame for.

Since you mentioned it I went and checked what "Reporters Without Borders" was saying and below is what I found.

Reporters Without Borders, the international media watchdog, said Wikileaks was showing “incredible irresponsibility” in publishing the documents.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7941981/Wikileaks-preparing-to-release-remaining-Afghan-war-logs.htm

"Revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous," they wrote. "It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks."

They said that the publication of the documents "reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/13/wikileaks-reporters-without-borders

In an open letter to Assange, Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard and its representative in Washington DC, Clothilde Le Coz, said the indiscriminate publication of 92,000 classified reports reflected "a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility".

The letter called on Wikileaks to provide detailed explanation of its actions and not to repeat its mistakes.

"Journalistic work involves the selection of information," the letter stated.

"The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing.

"Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media."

"But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous," the letter stated.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45855

[SergeiY]

It would be laughable if it wasn't so potentially serious. We have calls for Assange to be executed without out trial etc for publishing these documents. IF these docs are so sensitive, such a danger to life and national security, then why was access so d@mn easy for hundreds of thousands if not millions of govt employees. Those calling for drastic action against Assange should also be looking a lot closer to home, to the individuals responsible for allowing such widespread access to docs that threaten national security.

Because it is easy to steal something is hardly a defense for stealing. The Falang was drunk and asleep so I stole his watch, cell phone and 300,000 baht. I guess in your scenario we should shoot the Falang.

If you like weak analogies and desperately missing some 'stolen' documents - no worries, its pretty easy to get them back, they are now available on over thousand wikileaks mirrors.

[TAWP]

mark45y>> Thank you for posting the articles from August again. I am sure soon enough you will reach November.

Edited December 8, 2010 by TAWP

[mark45y]

mark45y>> Thank you for posting the articles from August again. I am sure soon enough you will reach November.

Do you think they have changed their minds? The WikiLeaks that I think are damaging occurred in August. August is when WikiLeaks posted the information that could get people killed. WikiLeaks was irresponsible in August, do you think they have reformed in the past three months? Did Reporters without Borders print a retraction?

Reporters Without Borders, the international media watchdog, said Wikileaks was showing “incredible irresponsibility” in publishing the documents.

http://www.telegraph...an-war-logs.htm

"Revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous," they wrote. "It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks."

They said that the publication of the documents "reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility".

http://www.guardian....without-borders

In an open letter to Assange, Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard and its representative in Washington DC, Clothilde Le Coz, said the indiscriminate publication of 92,000 classified reports reflected "a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility".

The letter called on Wikileaks to provide detailed explanation of its actions and not to repeat its mistakes.

"Journalistic work involves the selection of information," the letter stated.

"The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing.

"Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media."

"But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous," the letter stated.

http://www.pressgaze...storycode=45855

[mark45y]

Partial quote from above post by SergeiY, Reporters without Borders.

Raising the question, as we did, of the danger of releasing certain sensitive data does not in any way constitute incitement to censorship or, less still, support for the war. Should we be blamed for pointing out that the information provided by Wikileaks could be used by the Taliban and could serve as grounds for reprisals? Is it contrary to a humanitarian organisation’s vocation to draw attention to the possible impact on human lives of high-risk information? Is it wrong to point out that Wikileaks’ recent actions could backfire not only on itself but also on the independent researchers and journalists who cover these subjects online?

A media is responsible for what it publishes or disseminates. To remind it of that is not to wish its disappearance. Quite the contrary. Editorial responsibility, liked freedom of expression, to which it is linked, cannot be reduced to mere partisan or ideological interests. To accuse Wikileaks’ critics of being “Pentagon accomplices” distorts and pre-empts any discussion about the work of the media and media ethics. The principle of free expression is indivisible, as is the careful observation of the media that it requires.

I completely agree with the above partial quote from Reporters without Borders.

Perhaps after reading all of my posts you still misunderstand me. I am not trying to defend the prosecution of a war. Wars by their nature are indefensible. Anyone who has been in one will tell you that. There are no winners.

I am trying to say, in this case the same thing as Reporters without Borders that you quoted.

[SergeiY]

mark45y>> Thank you for posting the articles from August again. I am sure soon enough you will reach November.

Do you think they have changed their minds? The WikiLeaks that I think are damaging occurred in August. August is when WikiLeaks posted the information that could get people killed. WikiLeaks was irresponsible in August, do you think they have reformed in the past three months? Did Reporters without Borders print a retraction?

"Criticism of Wikileaks is not a call for censorship or support for the war"

Published on 17 August 2010

We reaffirm our support for Wikileaks, its work and its founding principles. It is thanks in large part to Wikileaks that the world has seen the failures of the wars waged by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...

The controversy has resulted in a real threat to the website of closure in the United States and targeted persecution of its contributors. The US authorities would be very mistaken if they tried to use our criticism as support for a decision to silence Wikileaks. The Obama administration made a serious mistake when it broke its promise to reveal the human, moral and financial cost of the “war against terror” launched by President George W. Bush. Wikileaks has rightly defied this blockade on access to information.

http://en.rsf.org/united-states-criticism-of-wikileaks-is-not-a-17-08-2010,38169.html

Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

By Katie Connolly

BBC News, Washington 1 December 2010

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."

But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

"The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

"The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

[LaoPo]

Bob Beckel is a well known liberal, but he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange and he makes a case for his position that is not to be easily dismissed. Watch the video.

Liberal you say? A man who calls for an illegal assasination on National Television (in front of many children) is considered a Liberal in your eyes....in your country?

Watch the video?

Who do you think I am and stand for?

"..he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange..."

That's the general consensus your Government want the Americans and rest of the world believe that indeed. Some still believe the lies of their Governments and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

Tell me, the deaths they fear, are those soldiers fighting in countries where the war was forced upon those countries...? Unneccessary wars, started by lies of the same Government ?

How many fine young soldiers died already because of those lies by your government UG ?

I'm sure you kow how to handle Google to find out but et me help you: 58.000 plus/minus.....in Iraq alone; because of lies + 2 million soldiers and civilians in Iraq and I'm not counting Afghanistan yet.

Where's the outcry from the American parents, brothers and sisters, friends about the loss of their loved ones in wars they didn't ask for but were lied upon ?

Tell me.

LaoPo

Are you that ill informed about American public opinion? A couple of years ago 63% of Americans thought it a mistake to send troops there. Bob Beckel is a liberal as opposed to conservative politician. Google it. He has a long history of being a liberal and working for liberal/Democratic administrations. The American public is also well informed about WikiLeaks harming America and our Armed Forces.

See graph.

The word Liberal comes from Latin: Liberalis (of Freedom) and Liberalism stands for the believes and importance of freedom, liberty and equal rights of individual people.

I suggest some people need re-scholing about the meaning of Liberal and Liberalism and in my eyes Mr. Bob Beckel belongs to that group.

In the eyes of hundreds of millions, if not billions, Liberal/Liberalism doesn't mean you have the right of calling for an "Illegal" assassination of another individual.

That, in my eyes, is barbaric and not Liberal.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

It would be laughable if it wasn't so potentially serious. We have calls for Assange to be executed without out trial etc for publishing these documents. IF these docs are so sensitive, such a danger to life and national security, then why was access so d@mn easy for hundreds of thousands if not millions of govt employees. Those calling for drastic action against Assange should also be looking a lot closer to home, to the individuals responsible for allowing such widespread access to docs that threaten national security.

Exactly; it's laughable that a young man, early twenties, could have acces to thousands and thousands of documents, together with a few million other people.

The Secratery of State bureau should be deeply ashamed and have a good look in the mirror where, when and how it went wrong instead accusing a whistleblower and make a big fuzz about it.

It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault, never the Administration itself.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Comedy - someone posting a news-article from 10-24, saying that 'now' some organizations are worried about the Afghan files. Seriously people, if you are going to argue this topic, be up to date. There is already, including on this forum, posts linking and summering news-posts posted LATER than that date saying that no links between deaths and releases of the Afghan files has been found...

Correct and you're ahead of me since I was about to ask for a link WHERE those names (even blanked out ones) were published.

But, the accusers here follow the media and follow them like lemmings jumping off a cliff....

LaoPo

[koheesti]

Bob Beckel is a well known liberal, but he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange and he makes a case for his position that is not to be easily dismissed. Watch the video.

Liberal you say? A man who calls for an illegal assasination on National Television (in front of many children) is considered a Liberal in your eyes....in your country?

Watch the video?

Who do you think I am and stand for?

"..he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange..."

That's the general consensus your Government want the Americans and rest of the world believe that indeed. Some still believe the lies of their Governments and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

Tell me, the deaths they fear, are those soldiers fighting in countries where the war was forced upon those countries...? Unneccessary wars, started by lies of the same Government ?

How many fine young soldiers died already because of those lies by your government UG ?

I'm sure you kow how to handle Google to find out but et me help you: 58.000 plus/minus.....in Iraq alone; because of lies + 2 million soldiers and civilians in Iraq and I'm not counting Afghanistan yet.

Where's the outcry from the American parents, brothers and sisters, friends about the loss of their loved ones in wars they didn't ask for but were lied upon ?

Tell me.

LaoPo

Are you that ill informed about American public opinion? A couple of years ago 63% of Americans thought it a mistake to send troops there. Bob Beckel is a liberal as opposed to conservative politician. Google it. He has a long history of being a liberal and working for liberal/Democratic administrations. The American public is also well informed about WikiLeaks harming America and our Armed Forces.

See graph.

International public opinion is largely opposed to the war in Afghanistan. A 47-nation global survey of public opinion conducted in June 2007 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found considerable opposition to the U.S. and NATO military operations in Afghanistan. In only 2 out of the 47 countries was there a majority that favoured keeping military troops in Afghanistan - Israel (59%) and Kenya (60%).^[1] On the other hand, in 41 of the 47 countries pluralities want U.S. and NATO military troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.^[1] In 32 out of 47 countries clear majorities want U.S. and NATO military troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Majorities in 7 out of 12 NATO member countries want troops withdrawn as soon as possible.^[1][2]

October 2010 United States: Americans are divided over the war in Afghanistan with 47% supporting and 45% opposing, a statistical tie within the poll's 3.1% margin of error. Likewise, 37% of Americans think the war was a mistake, and 37% thought it was not. Half of Americans, 51%, say they do not know what the nine-year war is about, while 49% claim they do. Less than one-in-five, 19%, of Americans expect a clear military victory for the U.S.-led forces, while nearly half, 46%, expect the Taliban to have some kind of role in the Afghan government as an outcome of the war: the plurality 28% expect a negotiated settlement that gives the Taliban a small role in government, 12% expect a negotiated settlement that gives the Taliban a significant role, and 6% expect the Taliban will defeat the foreign military forces in Afghanistan. The Angus Reid poll was conducted October 15-17,

September 2009 - United States: Growing American opposition to the war in Afghanistan reached an all-time high, while support for the U.S. war fell to an all-time low in September. A record majority 58% of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan, while only 39% support the U.S. war. The CNN - Opinion Research poll was conducted September 11–13,

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Afghanistan

I guess the vote has been taken!!!!!

The majority of countries in the world are against all kinds of things. Gay marriage being one of them.

[SergeiY]

What has same sex marriage and the opinion to it to do with the war in Afghanistan?

[LaoPo]

Interesting VIDEO made in August 2010 showing the 2 "victim" girls from Sweden: Anna Ardin and her girlfriend Sofia Wilen, attending (and helping at) a press conference:

SVT Forum 3/5 by Julian Assange, .....................the day after one of them became an alleged "victim":

http://www.youtube.c...k2_GVg#t=03m41s

@:

3:38 Sofia Wilén in pink with glasses

5:50 Anna Ardin - carries the microphone down the aisle (comment from reader: "seems quite fine the next day after she got "raped" ")

(another comment:: Anna Ardin -by the way she seems quite fine the next day after she was the 'victim' [...] )

9:48: (comment:) ironically @9:48 the 2 'victims' of Julian bump into each other

Anna Ardin is walking around with the microphone between the people attending the meeting.

SVT Forum 4/5 VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.c...n_order&list=UL

0:59 Anna Ardin is ready to help, standing at the right, with microphone

6:47 Anna Ardin is still leaning against the bench, full of attention for Julian Assange's speech, ready to bring the microphone...

10:18 " " " still there, waiting...and Sofia Wilén sitting right next to her with the blonde pony-tail

SVT Forum 5/5 VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

It's getting boring...the girls are still there....

LaoPo

[Wallaby]

Australian foreign ministers says the Americans are to blame for the leaks, not Assange. In addition, ex prime minister Little Johnny Howard says the leaks are a good thing.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/kevin-rudd-john-howard-speak-out-over-wikileaks-julian-assange/story-e6freoox-1225967838974