Julian Assange like a high-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

US vice-president makes strongest remarks by any White House official over WikiLeaks founder and dipomatic cables

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Sunday December 19 2010 18.20 GMT

The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to a "high-tech terrorist", the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration.

Biden claimed that Assange has put lives at risk and made it more difficult for the US to conduct its business around the world.

His description of Assange shows a level of irritation that contrasts with more sanguine comments from other senior figures in the White House, who said the leak of diplomatic cables has not done serious damage.

Interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden was asked if the administration could prevent further leaks, as Assange warned last week. "We are looking at that right now. The justice department is taking a look at that," Biden said, without elaborating.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

---

Here it comes...

[villager]

1. glad to know Democrats see things so "differently" than the military state apparatchiks in the GOP..

n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

2. I wish Joe would stay with just one message and stop changing his mind!

[Jefferson23]

3. Yea, Assange is the real threat, not Bush/Cheney and his mob. Sure

thing there Joe.

[molly77]

32. Joe Biden belittles his base. His opinion's are his own and the republicans.

[CBHagman]

44. I'm his "base."

Don't assume every DUer is Assange's lickspittle or toady. Don't assume that just because someone releases secret documents, he/she is doing it in the best interests of the people.

[Creative]

115. I think you must have missed something. Bush/Cheney are no longer a threat.

Obama abated that threat and his Justice Department will deal with this as well.

[Jefferson23]

121. I think you forgot the sarcasm thingie, right? n/t

[Catherina]

4. This from the war voter who authored the obscene plan to divide Iraq into three

after terrorizing the hell out of it with our weapons. Julian Assange hasn't terrorized anyone except the criminals of doublespeak, theft, and destruction.

[texshelters]

19. Kudos for that comment!

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[saigon68]

45. Biden is turning into a War Criminal Like the Chimp

[dionysus]

90. now start repeating "BRING EM ON"

[saigon68]

119. Nope I'm not going to waste my time

These people have bought in totally to the MI Complex & BFEE line

[Creative]

135. War crimes--war criminals. Those words tossed around so much that they have lost their meaning.

[Nihil]

137. They lost much of their meaning some time ago ...

... when the likes of Kissinger were rewarded rather than prosecuted
but the lack of any follow-up from your current President on the
war-crimes of the preceding administrations detracted even further.

[Creative]

139. I'm sure you would have thought that Roosevelt and Truman were war criminals as well.

[naaman fletcher]

52. Dividing it into three is a good idea

Iraq, like Yugoslavia an many African nations is only a nation because some western guy who was totally clueless just randomly created it. Iraq was three former provinces of the ottoman empire that wanted nothing to do with each other but some British guy decided to make it a country after world war 1. It took a brutal strongman to hold it together. Absolutly divide it up.

Of course I would have not gone in to begin with, but we already have.

[coalition_unwilling]

79. You have got to be kidding me - you are doing exactly what you

criticize the "British guy" of doing, deciding these people's fate for them, rather than allowing them the principle of self-determination.

N.B. Dividing Iraq into 3 provinces will allow Iran to enlarge its sphere of influence in the largely Shi'a south. Now that may be as it should be, but it hardly serves current U.S. foreign policy interests that Iran be allowed to enlarge its sphere of influence.

[Lord Magus]

84. I think you overestimate Iran's popularity in southern Iraq.

Just because they're both Shi'a doesn't mean they love each other.

[coalition_unwilling]

88. Understood. The people in Southern Iraq are Arabic, wheras the

Iranians are Persian, so ethnicity may trump religious affiliation. However, all the big players in SCIRI had asylum in Iran during the Saddam Hussein era, a fact that may make Iran's influence in the South pretty much a fait accompli, regardless of what the U.S. does or does not do.

[naaman fletcher]

89. Uh no

I'm respecting the tribal and ethnic divides that the ottomans understood butthe British did not. I don't care if it expands irans influence if that is what the people want. But let me guess, while chastising me for this you want to bundle Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis all into the same country that has zero historical basis other than the random determination of a clueless British guy?

[coalition_unwilling]

96. Quoting from your original post:, "Absolutly (sic) divide it up." You

thereby signalled your willingness to impose your will upon the people of the region irrespective of their wishes and your tacit agreement with Biden's idiocy.

I want the people of the region to be able to decide their destinies for themselves without meddling by westerners who presume to know what's best for them. The whole idea of the nation-state in the region is a Western European colonialist legacy imposed upon a region whose primary form of social organization prior to the colonialists was tribal and religious.

N.B. In bagging justifiably on the Brits, you ignore the hapless French. The agreement (Sykes-Picot) was a joint British-French monstrosity.

[naaman fletcher]

97. huh?

how are you going to let them decide? by imposing the one state and then letting them decide?

[coalition_unwilling]

98. Hmm. Well, you raise a valid point. And I think you and I may agree

far more than we disagree.

It may be too late now to undo the perverse legacies of European colonialism and their later American iterations. I honestly do not know what to do. What I do know is that pre-2003, Shi'a and Sunni lived together in integrated neighborhoods in Baghdad and that Iraq had the highest per-capita standard of living outside of Israel.

Dividing up Iraq into 3 mini-states would, in my opinion, sow the seeds of irridentist war for generations to come. And don't forget about Turkey to the north of a (presumably) Kurdistan in the north. Who will guarantee Kurdistan against the Turks?

[naaman fletcher]

99. yes

we probably do agree. As for Baghdad, I would suggest that the reason they got along was that the strong-arm of Saddam forced them to. Your point about Kurdistan is a valid one, but at that point I would take Washington's advice and wash our hands of it. I would give moral support to the Kurds, but would not guarantee anything.

[EFerrari]

5. This looks to be the angle Holder is working:

"If he conspired to get these classified documents with a member of the US military that is fundamentally different than if someone drops on your lap ... you are a press person, here is classified material."

And it depends upon calling journalism "conspiracy".

[Donnachaidh]

6. Rupert Murdoch is a far bigger high tech terrorist

And one that has done FAR more damage to this country. Where's HIS ticket to Gitmo and the waterboard suite?

[madmax]

9. My thoughts exactly. He's more lethal

and stealth. Gets away with it all using a big megaphone and in plain sight and on OUR airwaves.

[tcaudilllg]

16. When he finally croaks, it'll be a good day for America and the world.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmax]

8. I never expected him or President Obama to

say anything different. Consider the low information voter, those who don't pay attention to anything other than sound bites, misinformation, and the utterly clueless what else can they say?

[tomm2thumbs]

10. even my die-hard Republican friends thinks this is govt overreach against freedom of the Press

and believe me, I was shocked to hear it as we rarely talk politics.

Biden and any others who think they have the upper hand on this issue regarding public opinion better think again because this is not a Democratic or Republican view - this is basic matter of right and wrong and what the American Constitution guarantees. True, maybe the person who leaked it was breaking the law, but that will be decided in the Courts, but the Press are not committing acts of terrorism by reporting it. If that were the case, they would have already tried to shut down The New York Times, and others reporting on this story, and would have been thrown out of Federal Courts with a mocking laugh by any reasonable judge.

What Biden should do? Gee I dunno. Maybe they ought to look into the Bush/Cheney White House records to see who was REALLY putting this country at risk of terrorism. We were hit under George Bush, remember? Too afraid to look back Biden?

Joe Biden, as much as he might think he is doing the right thing in what he spouts, is holding the 'company line' that's all. But he's entirely transparent, like a wet piece of tissue.

[JDPriestly]

20. Judy Miller was not found to have committed any crime

other than disobeying a court order to reveal her source. From the facts that have been published, it appears that Assange did the same thing that Judith Miller did -- on a bigger scale.

Seymour Hersh also publishes information he gets through leaks as do virtually all the other decent journalists.

Unnamed sources in the White House . . .

Unnamed sources in the (or close to) the Pentaton . . .

Leaks, leaks, leaks, that's how we voters get the most useful information.

In fact, statements of government leaders can be classified into three categories:

1) facts such the text of bills and statistics or verifiable statements about past events
2) propaganda -- which is statements of opinion and doctored information presented as "facts"
3) leaks

Much of the inside "news" about important things like what is going on in Afghanistan or Iraq should be categorized as either propaganda or leaks.

[Grinchie]

28. What about Valerie Plame?

Did that not put her at risk? Didn't she lose her Career over disclosure used to discredit the revelation of the Yellow Cake fabrication by Cheney and Bush?

That's a Felony, or at least it was before the PTB started rewriting the laws in their favor.

Because they did not go after this story, it makes it OK to violate any oath or obligation, and it looks like the Government is running with it, confident that there will be no accountability, ever.

[JDPriestly]

39. We get the best government the corporations can buy, and it isn't

worth much. As long as the corporations run it and choose our leaders, we will only get bunglers. And yes, I think, in my opinion, giving away Valerie Plame's identity was as much a crime as is the leaking of these diplomatic cables.

People on DU claim that Cheney had abacadabra declassified the information about Plame. First, I'm not sure that he had that authority under the statutes that protect information about CIA agents. Second, I feel fairly certain that Scooter Libby told Judy Miller that the information had been declassified. Judy Miller printed it as was her right. Just when or how Cheney declassified it is unknown. And I suspect that the whole "Cheney declassified the information" excuse was dreamed up long after the information was passed on to not only Judy Miller but the very first person who ever "mistakenly" made Valerie Plame's identity and employment public.

[Lord Magus]

86. Legally Cheney didn't have that authority, as legally the VP has no executive authority.

But Bush did. The president can declassify anything at any time for any reason. Even if the reason is that he just felt like it.

So all Cheney would've had to do is call up Bush and tell him he wanted the info declassified. Like a good little puppet, Bush would do it.

[JDPriestly]

93. But I would bet you just about anything that Judy Miller published

her story before anyone thought about declassifying the information on Valerie Plame.

[Lord Magus]

100. Which would have been legal.

Publishing leaked information is not prohibited, and according to the Supreme Court can't be prohibited.

[JDPriestly]

107. And so, on what legal theory will they try to indict Assange.

He is publishing leaked information. Seems to me that Assange is doing the same thing that Judy Miller and many other journalists do.

I'm wondering how they will frame this. I've heard talk about a conspiracy. We see from the Judy Miller case that it really is not a crime to publish leaked information obtained from a government source. And, of course, Judy Miller comes to my mind but over the years there have been many examples of the publication of leaked material -- usually not so much at one time as Wikileaks has done.

The freedom of the press is a pretty broad protection. I don't see how a person can break the law by publishing the truth.

We shall see, but I haven't been able to think of any way they can do this.

Of course, with Blagojevich a big fuss was made. Blagojevich was intimidated and silenced but they could not prove anything much in court. Only one count stuck. At first I thought they had no evidence against Blagojevich and then read one allegation that sounded like it could be the basis for a charge. I haven't seen anything here yet, but there could be some facts that I don't know.

[Lord Magus]

87. That means leaking the information was illegal.

But publishing leaked information is not illegal. That was established in New York Times v. United States, when the Nixon administration tried and failed to block publication of the leaked Pentagon Papers.

[tomm2thumbs]

30. ironic

in fact they were released by an unnamed source until (from what I gather) that source (Pvt Manning) bragged to someone who revealed his identity - not necessarily so smart on their part - hence his incarceration.

you are 100% right, unnamed sources are the main source of useful information - much of the most critical stuff the American people literally NEED to know in order to make a rational decision on what is right or wrong about its government's actions.

I'd put Assange right up there with our own Jeremy Scahill as far as journalistic integrity, at least in so far as they are letting the messages speak for themselves, not throwing out one over the other for what it does or doesn't do for their personal opinions

[Scurrilous]

11. A sexy high-tech terrorist!

:o

[Raschel]

25. I don't know about sexy - but he sure has a cool James Bond-type name.

[The Second Stone]

12. It's pretty clear he did the same thing the

New York Times and The Washington Post did in publishing The Pentagon Papers.

The damn idiots in Washington seem to think that a journalist is a terrorist. It's pretty clear that Washington doesn't know what a terrorist is and that they have no clue what a journalist is supposed to do.

[MilesColtrane]

47. "It's pretty clear he did the same thing the...

New York Times and The Washington Post did in publishing The Pentagon Papers."

Maybe.

I think that is what Holder is investigating now.

One thing's for sure. Ellsberg didn't discuss the publishing the Pentagon Papers with the Times or WaPo before he copied them.

In fact, he first went to Kissenger, then to Senators Fullbright and McGovern before he revealed anything about the report to the press.

The Supreme Court decision in the wake of the release of the Pentagon Papers seems to clearly favor the First Amendment in the presses ability to publish secret government information.

Whether a member of the press can conspire with an insider to "liberate" classified documents for publication is another matter entirely.

[somone]

13. MBNA Corp sows more terror than Assange

[Hawkeye-X]

14. That's where you're wrong Biden...

He is no terrorist - but rather a information faciltator - meaning that the information that needs to be released is released.

I believe in a transparent government - don't you, Biden?

[tcaudilllg]

15. This is why Obama won the nomination...

and Biden was beat by Iowa.

[Odin2005]

17. No, Joe. The US Government is the High-Tech Terrorist.

[EFerrari]

22. Someone just tweeted, Biden is a strong supporter of drone strikes. n/t

[defendandprotect]

105. Another reason we need a new administration in 2012 ...

we need Democratic challengers to begin to step up now !!

[Pavulon]

18. He did a good job explaining conspiracy

and how it applies to this case.

[kestrel91316]

21. We are gonna snatch him and send him to a military tribunal,

and a little waterboarding just for kicks along the way. Just watch.

[Pavulon]

23. No, he will be charged in a federal court with conspiracy

extradited as treaties require. He will stand trial in a federal court if he participated.

[bhikkhu]

26. ...likely based on testimony extracted from Manning, by whatever means necessary

How very nice to have confidence in the ability of your government to achieve its desired result, and as per usual we don't really need to know about the ways and means. Whatever really happens will be declassified in 50 years or so, if ever.

[Pavulon]

37. Actually federal court is a public proceeding.

everything including discovery will be public record. Manning will choose to testify or be executed, as espionage can carry the death penalty.

This is a choice made by scumbags all the time.

[bhikkhu]

42. "a choice made by scumbags"?

At least you're consistent, but I can't help but think back to the revolution, and Madison's account of the constitutional convention. I imagine you would have been somewhat to the right of British tyranny in the first case, and escorted off the premises in the second.

[Pavulon]

54. Ames, hannsen and the rest of the traitors have it coming. Now are we backing

espionage in all forms or just when the players are popular or steal for a cause. Rosenberg stole for a cause too..

[bhikkhu]

59. Clearly we are backing punishment by any means necessary

...once we have convinced ourselves (prior to evidence or trial) that those involved are pieces of shit who have it coming. As I said - right of tyranny.

[Pavulon]

60. Manning confesses and assange's conspiracy is hinted to in those logs(nt)

[bhikkhu]

61. Of course. Confession is never a problem to acquire.

As long as you have the will and the means, and the ability to "manage" all the subsidiary information. That is one of the problems - once you practice and condone torture all credibility is lost, and demonstrations of naked power are necessary to govern, where previously consent was given freely.

[Pavulon]

64. Right, you can read it on google right now..bradass87 confessed already(nt)

[Ellipsis]

65. Post the link.

[Pavulon]

67. here ya go. this is a confession to a death penalty crime..

http://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html

[Ellipsis]

72. It puports does it? from an anonymous source...

"We just received this from a source requesting anonymity. It purports to be a more complete transcript of a portion of Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning's conversation with Adrian Lamo, the hacker who reported Manning to authorities."

Conspiracy.... err how do you define that? You sure this isn't a cabal?

There is nothing in this remotely indicating Assange.

(1:51:14 PM) Adrian: Anything unreleased?
(1:51:25 PM) bradass87: i'd have to ask assange
(1:51:53 PM) bradass87: i zerofilled the original
(1:51:54 PM) Adrian: why do you answer to him?
(1:52:29 PM) bradass87: i dont... i just want the material out there... i dont want to be a part of it

A lot of People call Steve Jobs, Steve, and they've never even shared an elevator with him



This doesn't stand up to your standards for a piss test. Anything more substantial?

[Pavulon]

73. his activity on siprnet combined with the lamo logs

plus whatever else is out there will be key for assange.

Manning is already done, he has no hope of ever living a free life.

[Ellipsis]

74. It's still not a viable link. So you "cast asparagus" on Assange based of of an annomous link.

Last I checked the heading on the OP was about Assange not Manning.

There's no conspiracy admit you have no proof or post it.

[Pavulon]

76. The fact Manning is in ongoing communication with him AT ALL is basis for conspiracy

charges. A jury can determine if the evidence supports a conviction. Sorry not taking it down.. Watch and wait for the indictments, they are inbound. this is a sure start.

(1:51:14 PM) Adrian: Anything unreleased?
(1:51:25 PM) bradass87: i'd have to ask assange

[Ellipsis]

78. You don't have to take it down... It's just not a viable link.

You've been touting this for the last few days (indeed I would almost go to the extent of say spamming) and resourcing a viable link would be helpful to you not me.

It shows more... that there's an agenda involved here.

Still looking for a link with a legitimate source. Post it when you have one. And I have no doubt when there is one, if there is one, you will.



Until then... thump, thump, thump.




But you might want to hold back on the speculation. You lose credibility. One also loses credibility when they don't practice what they preach.






Later Gator.







.

[Pavulon]

80. Assange can sue me. He will be indicted

on conspiracy. bet on it. The link in manning discussing his crime. a confession.

He is done, the only real question is does the dog bite his master.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bhikkhu]

70. Of course he did. Where confession is necessary, it is gained.

Exactly.

[Pavulon]

71. no, he confessed in a chat with adrian lamo.. no fingernails pulled, just teh stupid.

http://boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html

[bhikkhu]

124. ...just an agonizing decision of consciense

It says something about you that you can read that and see only "teh stupid".

[Pavulon]

128. Gobs of stupid and death behind bars is what I see in that choice. More info on conspiracy

from the NYT. If assange assisted him in the crime he is culpable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html

[bhikkhu]

136. Here is a mirror for you

What you wish for yourself is clear, as is the frustration.

So here is a mirror for you: we hate most in others what we struggle against in ourselves.

You think you need one thing, but what you need is self knowledge, to solve the internal divisions consuming and dispersing mental and physical energy. Know yourself - struggle less - hate less - be one person, the same on the outside as on the inside, with more value and effect.

[former9thward]

43. Many federal court proceedings are closed to the public.

Ones that have national security issues are always closed.

[Pavulon]

55. Ames and Hannsen had public trials, you can look them up on LN.(nt)

[former9thward]

58. Someone can have a public trial but on days when secrets are discussed

they close the courtroom to the public. Just ask a lawyer who has experience in the federal courts.

[kestrel91316]

41. That may be the way thiings SHOULD work, but I doubt we will play fair.

[bhikkhu]

24. Has Assange advocated the summary execution of anybody?

...or fabricated information with the intent of fomenting discord, spreading intolerance and ignorance? Willfully published information designed to encourage war, exonerate the murderers of civilians, justify assassination, mass murder, genocide, hatred and fear?

Biden in this case is blind to what is going on in his own backyard, and after the wrong kind of guy if he is concerned with terrorism.

[Kaleko]

33. He's not blind. He's a deliberate liar and tool for the state-sponsored terrorism

exported by the US of A in its never-ending quest for world domination.

[Hawkowl]

56. +1000

That is his job and he does it with gusto. The former senator from MBNA.

[wtmusic]

103. I think I'll donate some more money to WIkileaks.

Thanks, Joe. :thumbsup:

[GliderGuider]

27. "Uncle Joe" Biden is a pusillanimous tool of the oligarchy, says GliderGuider

Bleating at his masters' command.

What shocks me is that this comes as a surprise to anyone.

[high density]

29. I don't see him 'terrorizing' anybody but government officials and corporations

I guess we could also call Woodward and Bernstein terrorists under this sort of idiotic definition.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

34. The truth is "high tech terrorism"?????

How would VP Biden define the CIA Predator Drone strikes against "suspected militants" in a country that we're not even at war with?

Geeeez.....

[GeorgeGist]

35. Are you terrified?

[harmonicon]

36. *sigh*

Well, there goes most of my respect for Joe Biden. Oh well.

[UpInArms]

38. this from the guy who said "I really love ya, man" to Alberto Gonzales

he definitely has a picker and chooser problem.

sigh

[defendandprotect]

106. Biden has many problems ... beginning with Clarence Thomas ....

[marasinghe]

40. right on cue joe. received the bank of america/mbna memo, did ya? (n/t)

[davidwparker]

46. Now, now, Joe. Terrorist is a relative term. While we still sit

occupying Iraq/Afghanistan, their citizens may think of us as high tech terrorists too.

They know what he has and they don't want the riff-raff to be in on the secrets.

[Turbineguy]

48. Lighten up Mr. Biden.

Maybe Assange should use a blackboard like Glenn Beck.

[daleo]

49. Change you can believe in

Such a disappointment. More and more, it feels like there is really only one party.

[russspeakeasy]

50. Joe should stick to things he knows something about,

like meet and greets.

[treestar]

51. So far there does not seem to be anything major

so I wonder if the security clearance was pretty low.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. Joe Biden = to or greater than Sarah Palin?

quite a tool shooting off his mouth.

[Scottybeamer70]

62. "difficult for US to conduct it business"

Perhaps if the US didn't try to conduct it's business in whatever country
it chooses to do so, there wouldn't be a problem! When we decide (which
will never happen, I know) to stop invading other countries based on lies,
then perhaps the problems will go away. How dare those other countries not
welcome our invasions with open arms......and flowers.........and candy!

[sendero]

63. And you Joe...

.. are just a garden-variety moron.

[Anakin Skywalker]

66. Joe, the late night comedians all joke that you run your mouth too much!

[Matilda]

68. What the Administration should be asking is

"How was it possible for an Army private to gain access to this information?"

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he had to physically remove boxes of files, with a good chance that somebody would see him. It was very high-risk, and he took only what was relevant. Pfc. Manning just had to click a mouse, and probably wouldn't have got caught if he hadn't opened his mouth to the wrong person. Manning has disseminated a great deal of information, some of it (civilian casualties from Afghanistant and Iraq, for example) things we should know, and much of it just frivolous gossip. But it obviously just all came up for grabs too easily, and he took it because it was there.

I agree with Kevin Rudd's assessment - it was the fault of the United States for not protecting this material, if it's deemed to be so important. The authorities seem to be living in a time warp, not realising just how easy it is to break in when physical lifting and carrying isn't involved.

Indulging in hyperbole doesn't absolve the U.S. Government from its own lack of attention to security.

[Pavulon]

69. Because he had an intelligence MOS. Like asking how a person stole your shit

when you gave them the key to your home. His job GAVE him that access.

Its illegal, because he could is not a defense.

[Matilda]

94. Why does a private have access to diplomatic cables?

Is it necessary for his work?

[Pavulon]

95. no, he was a spc before being busted back.

however to fully understand that over access you have to understand army stupid. It makes no sense but not much ever did. He obviously had access to a secure system, he bragged about stealing from it. The system obviously did not have a IDS/IPS mechanism to catch abnormal behavior.

I had accesses to classified information as an E3 later e4 at 19 or 20.

Bottom line someone gave him the keys, and just like sex with a passed out girl it may be easier but it is still a crime. The lack of resistance does not indicate legality.

[Matilda]

108. Thanks for the explanation,

because it seems to me that's the cause of the whole problem - somebody not really responsible enough having too
easy access to files.

[Pavulon]

117. no problem!

i spend a good bit of time with this topic. On the other hand manning may be able to use mental health (his own) to reduce the severity of the punishment (if convicted)

If he is bipolar and did this in a manic episode (possible, speculating) there is a defense there. All of that be helped by his cooperation with the courts.

[L. Coyote]

75. So, Daniiel Ellsberg is a low-tech terrorist? How about Deep Throut, a bass terrorist?

Truth is the new terror :rofl:

ONLY if you are the liars or the ones hiding the truth.

[DeadEyeDyck]

85. LOL

[myrna minx]

113. LOL - no kidding.

:D

[mbperrin]

77. OH, shut up, Joe!

Getting plain embarrassing for a while now.

[DeadEyeDyck]

82. What scares me is that the Wiki-Leaks scandal is used as

a prelude to regualte the Internet. You can bet, sites like DU are on teh short list to be shut down.

[Hydra]

91. Oh, no

They like us here. Hi Agent Mike! :hi:

It's a useful tool to see what we're thinking and what our outrage levels are. If I had those numbers I could do some interesting calculations. If they aren't doing that, they're wasting time and money.

[bitchkitty]

83. I wish he'd just stop talking, period. n/t

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IScreamSundays]

102. WikiLeaks: Julian Assange facing US prosecution bid, says Joe Biden

Source: Telegraph

Mr Biden said that officials in the US Justice Department were actively exploring ways to prosecute Mr Assange in America over his website’s leaks.

It is the first admission from a senior member of the US administration that efforts are already underway in Washington to bring charges against Mr Assange, who is currently on bail in Britain facing extradition to Sweden on unrelated sexual assault charges.

The 39-year-old Australian-born whistleblower has infuriated the US government by leaking thousands of sensitive diplomatic cables.

He said last week that it looked increasingly likely the US would try to extradite him to face charges related over the leaked cables.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8212812/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-facing-US-prosecution-bid-says-Joe-Biden.html

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Matilda]

109. They really are stupid, elevating Assange to the status of martyr.

The more they scream and shout about him, the more credence they give him.

Some of the leaks are frivolous, some are important, but what the powers-that-be really hate is the egg on their faces. The more they rant and rave, the more credence they give Assange. They should shut up, tighten up their filing systems and tough it out. So far the frivolous leaks outweigh the important ones, and it would be less of an issue if the U.S. wasn't making such an almighty fuss.

I suspect Assange may be a smartarse, but he's also highly intelligent and very brave. He's always known the risks and is protecting himself by keeping his profile high. If he's extradited to the U.S., all hell will break loose, and Obama runs the risk of becoming as hated as G.W.Bush was. Because if Assange is a criminal, so is every journalist who's ever accepted a leaked document, and that's why the media is basically on his side.

[sirthomas66]

110. Biden must need some corporation money. I wonder which

group asked him to criticize Assange this time?

[defendandprotect]

111. Notice the use of ...

the word "terrorist" -- it's the first time I've see that threat to Assange

throw out so explicitly.

Chances I'd vote for Obama/Biden in 2012 -- nil --

[Heywood J]

112. "and made it more difficult for the US to conduct its business around the world."

There's your high crime right there. He made it more difficult to use secret prisons and torture.

[Bonobo]

114. What's the 'terror' part? nt

[Nihil]

120. "Terror" that his sponsors will be exposed.

Biden: Another bought & sold corporate ass-licker.

:grr:

[Imajika]

116. Good for Biden, I completely agree...

n/t

[SoCalDem]

118. Had Assange released stuff about the Bushies, Joe might not have said that

I don't know what to make of Assange, but I do think we need a lot less "classified" junk...and that our representatives need to stop acting like teenagers writing in Slam books & diaries..

Keep it professional & safe the catty remarks for face-to-face (deniable) conversations.

[fascisthunter]

122. lol...Biden is just another Con man Shilling for the Powerful Elite

[fascisthunter]

123. They will make Assange a Martyr and Expose themselves in the Process

politics is mattering less every year, while truth is universally embraced. Do what you will dumbasses.. start the quickening because you lose in the end and the people win.

[Pavulon]

132. Whats my OJ prize?

what do I win. (comment linked to chris rock standup)

[sarcasmo]

125. Our Nazi style government will use the Assange case to further regulate the Internet and most likely

Install a kill switch.

[Pavulon]

129. And power that switch with energy generated by burining jews... (nazi comps fail) nt

[sarcasmo]

138. self delete, not worth my time.

[ronnie624]

126. Completely lacking in logic and reason.

A person who disseminates information, thus revealing crimes is the same as a terrorist?

(1)the term “international terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—

(A) declared war;

(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

An examination of the historical record shows conclusively, that the U.S. government's conduct in the world -- proxy wars, deposing governments, invasions and mass bombings rationalized through conspiracy and the dissemination of lies -- during the last six decades, is FAR, FAR more consistent with the definition of 'terrorism' than anything Wikileaks (or anyone else, for that matter) has done.

[AlphaCentauri]

127. Assange is not worse than gossip TV

[truthisfreedom]

130. Hey Joe, unintended consequences: Call Assange a terrorist, no fair trial in US, so no extradition.

Nice work.

[Pavulon]

131. Not so much. The Executive branch can say what they like, the Judicial branch

is responsible for trying him. Assange's extradition would be based on treaty based procedures, not a popularity contest.

[yurbud]

133. what does that make pols who serve Wall Street?

[and-justice-for-all]

134. Assange is not a terrorist, he just exposed a terrorist...nt

[davidthegnome]

140. Not surprising

I think we all pretty much knew this was coming. What will be interesting to see is whether extradition will be allowed in a Nation that has condoned the torture of prisoners. They'd have to be more cautious with him in any event, because there are journalists who will be all over it regardless of the outcome - and some of them will even tell the truth.

That being said, I don't really give a damn what Biden thinks anymore.