Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Biggins · 08-12-2010 01:27AM

SamHarris wrote: »

...I doubt the US government is in the business of taking massive risk for no reward, Im thinking people like Daniel Ellsberg would be long dead if that were the case.

Now if Julian had of peed off Israel, they would have bumped him off a long time ago or bided their time, even into years in length.
They would probably take higher risks - after they stop off in Ireland to collect their new passports, when on the way to do the job! :pac:

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:27AM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

The whole Iraq war thing must have passed you by...

All the oil and the strategic location must have passed you.

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:31AM

Biggins wrote: »

Now if Julian had of peed off Israel, they would have bumped him off a long time ago or bided their time, even into years in length.
They would probably take higher risks - after they stop off in Ireland to collect their new passports, when on the way to do the job! :pac:

I have no doubt if it were some other countries documents, he would already be dead, including (if not especially) Israel.

I also dont think its out a sense of justice that the CIA would not take him out, merely that the damage is already done, and it wont be stopped by killing him. Think about it, if it came to light that the CIA did kill him, the damage it would do to US soft power around the world. It would be akin to the damage the Iraq war did to US authority.

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:33AM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

The whole Iraq war thing must have passed you by...

If you dont think the rewards COULD have been vast, for relativly little excertion, then I recommend you study the region more.

The fact that it was a complete disaster due to almost non existant planning is really irrelevant to my point.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 01:35AM

SamHarris wrote: »

I have no doubt if it were some other countries documents, he would already be dead, including (if not especially) Israel.

I also dont think its out a sense of justice that the CIA would not take him out, merely that the damage is already done, and it wont be stopped by killing him. Think about it, if it came to light that the CIA did kill him, the damage it would do to US soft power around the world. It would be akin to the damage the Iraq war did to US authority.

Aaa... but now-a-days the tactic is to use third party outside bodies to do the wet work.
No traceable connections and funding is done through off shore accounts.

Don't tell anyone I told ya!

oppenheimer1 · 08-12-2010 01:37AM

Biggins wrote: »

Who said that?
I must have honeslty missed the NWO bit somewhere!
As for the US, well they would LIKE to take him out but that would be too obvious right now, they will bide their time.
(Maybe they still fear the insurance file?)
In the meantime, they continue to use other means to make his life hell.

Its interesting times we live in!

I don't think they fear the insurance file at all and are trying to goad wikileaks into using it. If wikileaks are planning on releasing all the information drip by drip the US state department might be thinking its best to get the whole lot out immediately.Because there is so much information in the cables an onslaught of material for the wider press to digest would make suppression of stories easier.

And wikileaks would be out of the papers in a few days.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 01:39AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't think they fear the insurance file at all and are trying to goad wikileaks into using it. If wikileaks are planning on releasing all the information drip by drip the US state department might be thinking its best to get the whole lot out immediately.Because there is so much information in the cables an onslaught of material for the wider press to digest would make suppression of stories easier.

You could be right indeed.
I wonder what is the chain of events/single incident what would lead to the file being cracked open!

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:40AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't think they fear the insurance file at all and are trying to goad wikileaks into using it. If wikileaks are planning on releasing all the information drip by drip the US state department might be thinking its best to get the whole lot out immediately.Because there is so much information in the cables an onslaught of material for the wider press to digest would make suppression of stories easier.

And wikileaks would be out of the papers in a few days.

Probably true, and untill they are all out damage control cant really take place. Equally, business cant really resume as normal untill then as everyone looks at each other wondering what is coming.

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:42AM

Biggins wrote: »

Aaa... but now-a-days the tactic is to use third party outside bodies to do the wet work.
No traceable connections and funding is done through off shore accounts.

Don't tell anyone I told ya!

Maybe, but then, like I said the guy could be killed by a genetic defect he has had since birth and most people will believe it was the CIA.

Im no fan of the CIA, but they are far from stupid. Also, if he were to die, sure I would be suspicious of them. I would also be looking at the Gulf states, and any number of other powerful forces embarrassed/threatned by this.

Sticky_Fingers · 08-12-2010 01:43AM

SamHarris wrote: »

If you dont think the rewards COULD have been vast, for relativly little excertion, then I recommend you study the region more.

The fact that it was a complete disaster due to almost non existant planning is really irrelevant to my point.

Wait a minute, I thought it was all about WMD's and bringing the light of Western democracy to the poor huddled masses of Iraq, no one officially said anything about it being all about oil.
Gee if only we could have seen the government documents and the behind the scenes operations in the lead up to the invasion and occupation fiasco perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would be alive today.

But where could these documents have been disseminated to the public to show the real reasons for the invasion, oh wait.....

Biggins · 08-12-2010 01:47AM

SamHarris wrote: »

...Im no fan of the CIA, but they are far from stupid...

LOL You really need to read up on CIA history.

Simple examples:

http://www.mgrfoundation.org/sect13.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/cia_admits_mistakes.html

http://baltimorechronicle.com/mistakes.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002157.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879374,00.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038551445X/wnycorg-20
(Some woppers in there its said!)

The Bay Of Pigs one was indeed a classic!

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:53AM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Wait a minute, I thought it was all about WMD's and bringing the light of Western democracy to the poor huddled masses of Iraq, no one officially said anything about it being all about oil.
Gee if only we could have seen the government documents and the behind the scenes operations in the lead up to the invasion and occupation fiasco perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would be alive today.

But where could these documents have been disseminated to the public to show the real reasons for the invasion, oh wait.....

God I cant believe your actually talking about the Iraq war.... But anyway

There were 36 ( or something like that, cant remember) reasons given officially for the Iraq war. All that both you and I said were included.

People dismiss the idea of spreading democracy as important because of its obvious naivete and failure in this context. But it did play an enormous part of the discussion, if not THE largest part; read that in some of the memoirs of those present.

Stop with the Iraq war anyway, if you want to discuss it start a thread in the politics forum.

Your not exactly comparing like with like here, the release of such a document would have contributed greatly to a national discourse on an important topic, whilst not causing any real damage to national security. None of the documents so far (all combined even) do not fit this remit.

If they do have such a document, it would probably serve them to release it now, so that people can see Wikileaks as providing a vital social service, rather than just playing gossip.

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 01:54AM

Biggins wrote: »

LOL You really need to read up on CIA history.

Simple examples:

http://www.mgrfoundation.org/sect13.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/cia_admits_mistakes.html

http://baltimorechronicle.com/mistakes.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002157.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879374,00.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038551445X/wnycorg-20
(Some woppers in there its said!)

The Bay Of Pigs one was indeed a classic!

Your equating failure with stupidity.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 02:03AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Your equating failure with stupidity.

O' believe me, the CIA managed to do both at times!

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 02:08AM

Biggins wrote: »

O' believe me, the CIA managed to do both at times!

So your opinion is they are going to kill Julian Assange soon, despite it blatantly not being a good idea, or even useful, out of a sense of revenge or something? Id take that bet.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 02:11AM

SamHarris wrote: »

So your opinion is they are going to kill Julian Assange soon, despite it blatantly not being a good idea, or even useful, out of a sense of revenge or something? Id take that bet.

Nope, not my opinion and never said it.
Please point out exactly where I have!

Have said the Americans would love to take him out (probably).

There is a difference. One is an opinion, the other is your putting words in my mouth or at least attempting to!

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 02:11AM

http://www.economist.com/

The blogs here have good analysis, from all sides if anyone is interested.

SamHarris · 08-12-2010 02:14AM

Biggins wrote: »

Nope, not my opinion and never said it.
Please point out exactly where I have!

Have said the Americans would love to take him out (probably).

There is a difference. One is an opinion, the other is your putting words in my mouth or at least attempting to!

Probably, a certain type of government official, obviously some have already been quite vocal. But then others, like Robert Gates were cool about it, Im sure the biggest feeling right now is resignation. The cat is completly out of the bag on this one, the time for taking out those who know too much has past.

I didnt really think you did, I was just wondering how we started arguing over if the CIA were stupid, occasionally incompetent or both

Such is a thread I suppose.

Biggins · 08-12-2010 02:17AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Probably, a certain type of government official, obviously some have already been quite vocal. But then others, like Robert Gates were cool about it, Im sure the biggest feeling right now is resignation. The cat is completly out of the bag on this one, the time for taking out those who know too much has past.

I didnt really think you did, I was just wondering how we started arguing over if the CIA were stupid, occasionally incompetent or both Such is a thread I suppose.

Well its off topic but we all know, no agency is perfect. They make mistakes, complete errors and are prone to stupidity.
...But its off topic anyway...

Sticky_Fingers · 08-12-2010 02:24AM

SamHarris wrote: »

God I cant believe your actually talking about the Iraq war.... But anyway

This is a prime example of why sites like Wikileaks are required, if we don't learn from the mistakes of the past then we are doomed to repeat them. All the recent nonsense concerning Iran leads me to believe that perhaps they are looking for a reason to declare war and continue the spread of western democracy (haha:pac:) to the rest of the world. To give them their due the US has been shown to be a voice of moderation in this regard but it is helpful to see who actually wants war and why.

SamHarris wrote: »

There were 36 ( or something like that, cant remember) reasons given officially for the Iraq war. All that both you and I said were included.

People dismiss the idea of spreading democracy as important because of its obvious naivete and failure in this context. But it did play an enormous part of the discussion, if not THE largest part; read that in some of the memoirs of those present.

Trust the massaged recollections of a bunch of war mongering ammoral corporate stooges, I'd rather trust Gary Glitter to take care of the kids. As for spreading democracy, I'm all for it, just as long as those doing the spreading actually believe in its tenets and don't accomplish their mission through the barrel of a gun.

SamHarris wrote: »

Your not exactly comparing like with like here, the release of such a document would have contributed greatly to a national discourse on an important topic, whilst not causing any real damage to national security. None of the documents so far (all combined even) do not fit this remit.

If they do have such a document, it would probably serve them to release it now, so that people can see Wikileaks as providing a vital social service, rather than just playing gossip.

Nonsense, the national discourse surrounding the topic of the Iraq invasion was totally based on gossip and rumour, it was the only game in town been supported by the governments. The sad fact is that the world was lied to by the US and Britain all to drum up support for a reckless invasion. This is why Wikileaks is needed, we need to peel back the layers of BS that governments spin in order to justify whatever action they want to take. The people who pull the strings don't want people to know whats going on because when we see who truly benefits from the actions taken we might not go along with it.
Who is to say that there is not another Iraq situation just over the horizon, that the US or any other nation are not organising a foolish expedition upon some other country in the name of freedom (and profit). That is why organisations like Wikileaks are required, governments cannot be trusted to govern justly without the oversight and consent of those being governed and there has been very little of that going around the world lately.

Its all well and good having this information 25 years down the line when it is declassified and open to the public but by that stage its as useful as tits on a bull because then it will be too late do anything with it.

Manic Moran · 08-12-2010 08:43AM

Nonsense, the national discourse surrounding the topic of the Iraq invasion was totally based on gossip and rumour, it was the only game in town been supported by the governments. The sad fact is that the world was lied to by the US and Britain all to drum up support for a reckless invasion. This is why Wikileaks is needed, we need to peel back the layers of BS that governments spin in order to justify whatever action they want to take.

The cables or internal documents showing that Bush deliberately lied in order to invade Iraq have been rather conspicuous by their absence thus far, Wikileaks notwithstanding.

NTM

FlutterinBantam · 08-12-2010 09:01AM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

To give them their due the US has been shown to be a voice of moderation in this regard but it is helpful to see who actually wants war and why.

Trust the massaged recollections of a bunch of war mongering ammoral corporate stooges, I'd rather trust Gary Glitter to take care of the kids. As for spreading democracy, I'm all for it, just as long as those doing the spreading actually believe in its tenets and don't accomplish their mission through the barrel of a gun.

.

Thank God we have countries not willing to be pushed around by terrorists and willing to stand up and defend themselves with whatever it takes.

Makes the world a free er and a better place.

Sticky_Fingers · 08-12-2010 09:49AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The cables or internal documents showing that Bush deliberately lied in order to invade Iraq have been rather conspicuous by their absence thus far, Wikileaks notwithstanding.

NTM

Here's some of the spin put out but Bush/Blair before the invasion as well as examples of the dirty tricks played afterward.

Blair pressures attorney general to say war was legal:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7012032.ece

Blair "intentionally and substantially exaggerated WMD threat":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7885629/Iraq-inquiry-Government-intentionally-and-substantially-exaggerated-WMD-threat.html

Cheney concealed counter terrorism operations from US congress:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6695496.ece

Bush states link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (2003):
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/

Bush finally sobers up to reality and admits no Al Qaeda in pre-invasion Iraq (2008):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/15/bush-acknowledges-absence_n_151144.html

Aide to Colin Powell alleges torture was used to help build Iraq War case:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-14/politics/iraq.torture_1_qaeda-lawrence-wilkerson-interrogation?_s=PM:POLITICS

Ex CIA chief George Tenet claims no serious discussion held on Iraqi WMD program:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html

CIA chief says Bush ignored intel that stated Saddam had no WMDs:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd

And this doesn't even address the whole waterboarding thing. We needed Wikileaks back then to help shine a light on these toerags and we need Wikileaks now to keep the current crop of idiots in line.

08-12-2010 11:05AM

I see the Assange fanboys/girls, and I keep thinking of that cat video from Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

FU-FU-FU-FU-FU-FU-FU-FIGHT THE POWAH!

FIGHT THE POWAH!

karma_ · 08-12-2010 11:22AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I see the Assange fanboys/girls, and I keep thinking of that cat video from Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

FU-FU-FU-FU-FU-FU-FU-FIGHT THE POWAH!

FIGHT THE POWAH!

Maybe you should stick to watching cartoons, and let the adults talk about this.

wes · 08-12-2010 11:38AM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thank God we have countries not willing to be pushed around by terrorists and willing to stand up and defend themselves with whatever it takes.

Makes the world a free er and a better place.

Terrorists tend to defend there actions by saying the exact same thing.

Mark200 · 08-12-2010 11:42AM

wes wrote: »

Terrorists tend to defend there actions by saying the exact same thing.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Sticky_Fingers · 08-12-2010 11:50AM

Mark200 wrote: »

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

But a trolls a troll even if he sits on a toilet rather then under it

Nodin · 08-12-2010 12:23PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The cables or internal documents showing that Bush deliberately lied in order to invade Iraq have been rather conspicuous by their absence thus far, Wikileaks notwithstanding.

NTM

On the American side perhaps.

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Run_to_da_hills · 08-12-2010 12:33PM

Wikileaks being used to justify Patriot act legislation for Internet

Senator Mitch McConnell called Assange a "high-tech terrorist" on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday and said, "if it‘s found that Assange hasn’t violated the law, then the law should be changed."

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/breaking-wikileaks-being-used-to.html

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments