Julian Assange just made matters worse

[Cainanite (imported)]

Yes, I suppose that is one way of looking at it.

But it is damned if you do and damned if you don't...

If nothing is done it will be seen by some (especially in the Middle East) as weakness or cowardice...

Damned if you do and damned if you don't...

Sorry to target you A-1. I don't mean for you to take the brunt of this criticism.

[EDIT FOR CONFIRMATION: I am not going after you, or your beliefs, A-1. I respect you. I am attacking a very commonly made argument, used by both sides of politics, and used all over these forums.]

I am sick and tired of the extraordinarily lame justification of, "What will they think of us in the Middle East?" and, "Our enemies will see it as weakness."

This is complete bullshit. Worse than that, it is a complete self delusion.

Here is the real answer to those questions... WHO CARES?

If people who live in free countries and nations lived like they were free, they wouldn't care what their enemies thought. They are your enemies. They do not need an excuse. Haven't they proven this time and time again? Any little excuse will do. If they don't have an excuse, they will just make one up.

If your enemies are just going to make up excuses anyway, and continue to be your enemy no matter what you do, STOP PANDERING TO THEM! It really doesn't matter what you do. If they are planning to attack you, they do not need a reason. Their reason could be, you said "gezheinteit" instead of "god bless you" when someone sneezed. Whether or not you punish some self absorbed liberal nutjob or not, does not factor into your enemy's thinking process.

You want to really piss your enemy off? Just live your life as though they don't exist. Just ignore them. If they attack you, bomb them into the stone-age, then go back to ignoring them. You cannot win them over. What you do, or do not do within your own country is completely irrelevant to them.

The only thing fear mongering like, "Our enemies will see it as weakness," does is to reduce freedoms within free nations.

The way countries like The USA, The UK, and Sweden deal with each other, and strike deals isn't even on the radar in places like Syria, or Iran.

I seriously don't know why intelligent people in free nations keep using this tired old excuse to try and justify themselves and actions that have nothing to do with freedom.

This argument is so devoid of value, if it were a movie, it would be directed by the Wayan Brothers. We need to stop using it.

[A-1 (imported)]

...

You want to really piss your enemy off? Just live your life as though they don't exist. Just ignore them. If they attack you, bomb them into the stone-age, then go back to ignoring them. You cannot win them over. What you do, or do not do within your own country is completely irrelevant to them...

Hey, Buddy, you are preaching to the choir...

...on or about 9-11-2001 I advocated giving Afghanistan a deadline to turn over binLaden to us. The length of time until that deadline would have been the time that it would have taken us to get 2 Ohio Class submarines (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... d=200&ct=4) into the Mediterranean Sea. Each Ohio Class submarine has 18 missiles each (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine) with either 8 100 kt weapons OR 4 300 kt weapons in mirved warheads (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=trident+ ... s:38,i:244). That's roughly 288 100 kt nuclear weapons if you used the 100 kt variety. (Remember, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were roughly 12 kt and 20 kt each, respectively.)

If they had not turned him over by then we could pepper the surface of Afghanistan with 100 kiloton thermonuclear weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II). This would insure the killing of practically every living thing within the borders of Afghanistan. Of course, I was 'kidded' with the whole "BOMB DETROIT" thing until this day because I made a similar comment about Detroit in jest, if memory serves...

At any rate, I was serious about Afghanistan at the time. It would have been much cheaper in money AND American lives than what we ended up doing.

...

This argument is so devoid of value, if it were a movie, it would be directed by the Wayan Brothers. We need to stop using it...

One might argue that my solution was somewhat radical. But remember, Japan was the last country that attacked America in such a manner, and that's what happened to Japan, eventually, except we did NOT bomb them into the "stone age".

But believe me, buddy, if I had been in George W. Bush's position, that is EXACTLY what Afghanistan would have received, because let's face it...

THE MOTHERFUCKERS HAD IT COMING TO THEM!

(...you may be sorry you commented about this now. I'd rather be like I am now than to turn into a Conservative again... So, let us just molly-coddle the Middle East bastards ...until we come to our senses...)

Have a Happy Day!

[justjustin (imported)]

This man exposed war crimes. But as the war crimes were committed by America, it is the whistle-blower who will be punished. Such is life.

[Dave (imported)]

Nobody said it's fair and nobody said it's right.

That's the risk of taking on the most powerful nation in the world.

What is unfair is that Swedish rape charge that isn't a charge and might never be and might never have been rape.

What is unfair is talking about yanking him out of an embassy. That's two wrongs that can't and don't make a right.

[A-1 (imported)]

This man exposed war crimes. But as the war crimes were committed by America, it is the whistle-blower who will be punished. Such is life.

Well, let me see...

If a certain nation was not harboring terrorists who destroyed buildings in New York then maybe there would have been no war and maybe there would have been no alleged war crimes for ASS_ange to concern himself.

I suppose that destroying Afghanistan with nuclear weapons could have been construed to be a war crime also. Regardless, it sickens me to see America at war.

By the way, is it honest to assume guilt on hear-say evidence? Because that is just what you have done. But since it is America I guess that is O.K., right? I mean, nasty-assed America that seems to be free with its money sending aid all around the world?

Nasty-assed America who helps nations whenever she can. Seems to me that there is a double standard, here, all right.

[Elizabeth (imported)]

This is the arrogance of the power. This is also why we in Europe chuckle about the action of Assange. Assange irritates the arrogant power and we love it.

Hegemony has it limits.

Elizabeth

[Elizabeth (imported)]

Then, all the USA needs to do to make this go away, is file charges against Assange. If what he did was a crime, and they file charges, no embassy in the world would continue to protect Assange. Assange himself has promised to turn himself over if charges are laid.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Just charge the man, and be done with it. However, if you do, you need to give the man his day in court.

As a spy, stealing secrets during a time of war, is subject to the laws of war, not trial. I am pretty sure the person stealing secrets is not permitted to determine what secrets a state can have. He is also not free to steal US secrets and publish them for his own ego. Let's see what other governments are willing to put up with Assange stealing their secrets and publishing them? Secrets stolen from a military that was actively engaged in a war authorized by Congress. Where I come from, people stealing secrets are called "spies".

But if no one has filed charges against him, why is he so afraid to go and stand trial in Sweden?

Elizabeth

[Cainanite (imported)]

As a spy, stealing secrets during a time of war, is subject to the laws of war, not trial. I am pretty sure the person stealing secrets is not permitted to determine what secrets a state can have. He is also not free to steal US secrets and publish them for his own ego. Let's see what other governments are willing to put up with Assange stealing their secrets and publishing them? Secrets stolen from a military that was actively engaged in a war authorized by Congress. Where I come from, people stealing secrets are called "spies".

Assange didn't steal the information. It was given to him. He published it. This is what reporters do.

Think of Woodward and Bernstein publishing the secret info Deep Throat gave them. Woodward and Bernstein were not spies. Neither is Assange.

But if no one has filed charges against him, why is he so afraid to go and stand trial in Sweden?

Elizabeth

Because the USA has openly called for his head, and openly called for him to be treated as an enemy combatant. The only thing stopping him from turning himself over to them, is that Sweden (oddly) won't give him an assurance that they won't turn him over to the USA without cause.

Sweden normally does not hand over people for extradition, especially if they might face death or torture at the hands of another country. That they will not give Assange this assurance is VERY strange. He is right to be worried.

[Elizabeth (imported)]

Assange didn't steal the information. It was given to him. He published it. This is what reporters do.

Think of Woodward and Bernstein publishing the secret info Deep Throat gave them. Woodward and Bernstein were not spies. Neither is Assange.

Because the USA has openly called for his head, and openly called for him to be treated as an enemy combatant. The only thing stopping him from turning himself over to them, is that Sweden (oddly) won't give him an assurance that they won't turn him over to the USA without cause.

Sweden normally does not hand over people for extradition, especially if they might face death or torture at the hands of another country. That they will not give Assange this assurance is VERY strange. He is right to be worried.

Not the same thing at all. There is a huge difference between walking down an alley where a bank robbery just took place, finding money and picking it up as opposed to waiting outside in the get away car.

Elizabeth