At 5/29/12 09:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
The DoD had to relocate 10 individuals in different countries due to the cables being released and was one of the reasons for the Tunisian Revolution.
The DoD STATED that was the reason...that is different from saying they HAD to do it. Since agencies like the DoD aren't in the habit of full disclosure and essentially act on the "trust us because we're the government" principle, I'm not sure I'd use the word "HAD" here. Also I find it more then a little funny you're going to act like high ranking government officials haven't outed or endangered operatives for purely political reasons, reasons waaaaay less justifiable then Assange (Valerie Plame anyone?)
when the cables for the Tunisian government about how much corruption in the government there was (besides the fact a guy set himself on fire and pretty much kick started the whole thing)
Revolutions are a bad thing now? Outting government corruption is bad now? You went from something that certainly is questionable to something that I think most people wouldn't have a problem with. Or is it that you think it's only acceptable to see governments toppled if it's done by the US military?
his whole business is based on leaking shit like this it is his fault.
No, that doesn't cover the definition legally for espionage son. Also "business" is the wrong word. Wikileaks was staffed by volunteers and run off donations. Unless someone can prove Assange turned around and pocketed any of those donations, this was clearly not a business and not being done for profit.
just because he published it on the internet doesn't make him any better than Bradley Manning who gave it to him.
Nobody is talking morals, the law is what's being discussed. You charged him with a crime, and the response you got was someone stating he did not meet the definition of that crime.
if anything he its like giving a suicidal person a handgun then going to court for your involvement.
What? It's not like that at all. Also I fail to see how you would always go to court in the instance of your analogy. There would only be a very specific set of circumstances where that could happen, and I can think of almost no way to push criminal charges and make them stick. Your analogy sucks, and it does nothing to help your case.
your guilty for some part of involvement.
Guilty of what? Be specific! That's what the law does, and that's what you want Assange tried under. The specific LAW.
in this case its classified information and the idiots are Jullian Assange and Bradley Manning.
It just gets more and more nonsensical as it goes on...why should I expect anything less?
Hardly see above
Above is useless. Above is nonsense that you haven't proven the merits of and doesn't even really pass a surface glance test for wrongdoing. He absolutely has a plausible deniability from where I sit, as he can very easily state he put the documents out there under a belief that people had a right to know what they're government was up to...if that resulted in criminal activity or other harm, well, unfortunate but not his actual intent.
Also still waiting for you to offer some reasoning for why he's guilty of the sexual assault stuff.