Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why doesn't the United States take direct action against WikiLeaks and the Founder of WikiLeaks?

It seems to me that the action of the Soldier who gave the files to WikiLeaks is clearly Treason and he should be tried for the crime of Treason and if found guilty, given the maximum sentence allowed by law.

But the actions of WikiLeaks are acts of War that are intended to do great harm to the US in general and to US Foreign policy specifically. That being the case, the US Government it would seem, has justification to take direct action against either WikiLeaks, the WikiLeaks founder, or both. The US should unleash an extensive computer attack against WikiLeaks and all of the IT infrastructure with the aim of deleting and destroying the data. The WikiLeaks found should be captured and brought to justice in the US or simply eliminated as a strong message to others that the US has long arms and the will to act.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Musical

every file wikileaks has ever released is now available as a torrent, and over 400,000 people have downloaded another 1.4Gb torrent of unreleased material from wikileaks, which is currently encrypted. If anything happens to Julian Assenge, the encryption key will go public, and 1.4gb of text files that wikileaks has so far withheld will go public with it. It can't be stopped.

wikileaks website went from having six international mirrors last week, to over 500 mirrors today. It can't be stopped.

type this number into your web browser
>>>88.80.13.160<<<
that takes you to an active wikileaks mirror site, where you can start reading the cables right now if you want, even though there is currently an ongoing attack on the dns server to resolve the host name coming out of the us and failing to take the site offline, showing the american intelligence service how impotent it really is. It can't be stopped.

What's that thing they say on the internet?
We are legion. We are many.

The US may have long arms, but you can't kill our freedom by "taking out" one person. The fact you think it can just highlights your pathetic ignorance to how much the game has changed.

Oh, and by the way, inciting others to commit a crime is a crime, and last I heard, taking down websites and dns servers with DDOS attacks, as you are inciting others to do with your question, is a federal offense in the USA. So is capital murder, like your other suggestion, you sick little man.

Yours is exactly the kind of fucked up attitude wikileaks exists to throw into the international spotlight. you can't go around committing crimes, executing foriegn nationals and attacking information infrastructure at will to cover up your own crimes against humanity. And neither can your government. The truth will out, and that's why america is so afraid right now.

Sarah Failin' said Julian should be hunted down like Osama. So I guess that means he's safe from capture for at least the next ten years, huh? Shame nobody can say WHY julian is beoing called a terrorist. He's journalist. Both words end with ist though, I can see how that might confuse a stupid american like yourself.

USA = guilty as sin of crtimes against humanity

julian assange = award winning journalist.

the only terrorists in this world work for the pentagon and wear US Flags on their army greens.

and the fact remains, for all your hot air, wikileaks is still online, and julian is still alive and well and telling it how it is.

oh, and in my country, if you have a problem with someone, you go toe to toe, you don't hide 1000 yards away behind a gun like a weak little bitch, or talk shit about hiding 1000 yards away and think it makes you sound tough. But that's cool. your gun laws just = more dead americans, which is fine with the whole world :) we like it when yo kill each other, it's funny.

and you question directly advocates and incites murder and computer crimes. so there

Lickitysplit · 70-79, M

You are more than welcome to share the information you have posted in response to my question -- you have that freedom, if you live in a free society. I am advocating no crimes, because I am not advocating individual people to attack WikiLeaks. As you say, that is a crime and I believe that all criminals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law -- criminals such as Julian Assange and his staff and organization.

I advocate here that MY NATION, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, take action that is fully legal and in accordance with all international law and treaties to which the US is a signatory. I advocate here that the US Government seek out and assassinate terrorists and those like Julian Assange who enable them in ways that could eventually take away your freedom and mine.

Are you so ignorant as to assume that Islamofascist terrorists, given the chance, would not impose Sharia law on you and I? Do you believe that you would enjoy your freedom, liberty, and the anarchy you seek, under the rule of law they wish to impose upon those of us who are free today? All Government need secrecy in order to operate and while I do not agree with everything my Government does, I would far rather have the Government I have today, even the president I have today, who I personally despise, that to be governed by those who seek to replace my Government with the government they support.

Am I a murderous son of a bitch? You bet your sweet ass I am. And I can shoot a gnat off the ass end of a fly at close to 1,000 yards and would probably enjoy watching you cower through the cross-hairs of my scope. I would tell you to suck mine, but you would probably enjoy it too much.

groplup

It is my understanding that the Wiki guy is Australian and is not under US law. Therefore, not treason. Anyone, thinking that freedom of speech is treason is a moron. The Constitution was written for a reason, the reason being idiots like lickeysplit get to say what they want to say without jailtime. As far as I am concerned nothing in these docs is anything that everybody didn't know. I think you better look up your treason federal law before yapping about something you know nothing about.

GuardianoftheHeart

Technically, the Constitution grants the freedom of speech, but not the right to endanger ones neighbor. I would say "eliminated" is to much, but the website needs brought down.

Lickitysplit · 70-79, M

The US Constitution does not apply in this case. The soldier took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and to follow the lawful orders of his superiors. He signed contracts with the Government when he applied for and accepted his security clearanace to protect all classified information and material and not to disclose such information to others without a proper clearance and a "Need to Know, under penalty of the law.

In effect, as a US Soldier with a security clearance, he waived his constitutional right to freedom of speech -- as upheld time and again by the US courts.

The founder of WikiLeaks is not a US citizen and the WikiLeaks organization is not a US corporation or legal entity. Therefore, the US Constitution has no jurisdiction. The acts committed by WikiLeaks and their founder are clearly detrimental to the interests of the US, the US requested they not release the information, they were told it was classified information owned by the US government and that its release would damage the US. Therefore, WikiLeak's subsequent release of that information can be construed as an Act of War. In response to an act of war, the US Government, as a Sovereign Nation, has the right under international law to respond in virtually any way it chooses not specifically prohibited by international treaty to which the US is a signatory. In other words, in this case the Constitution does not apply and the US can do almost anything it chooses. An Executive Order of the President is all that is required to assassinate the owner of WikiLeaks -- International treaties on assassination apply only to Heads of State, which he clearly is not.

puck61

Wikileaks has become a terrorist organization an Assange is guilty of espionage Ok I will admit that "terrorist organization" is a bit of a stretch...........

Apollo271

Er...ever heard of the constitution

Lickitysplit · 70-79, M

Yes. Read the above and learn the Constitution before you try to throw it out there.

Add a comment...