Free Speech Hero Jailed By Former Colonial Oppressors

Wikileaks fonder Julian Assange has finally been arrested for having sex without a condom.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Assange, 39, turned himself in to police Tuesday morning, hours after Britain received a formal warrant for his arrest from Swedish authorities. Assange denies any wrongdoing and says he will fight the attempt to extradite him, beginning with a hearing Dec. 14.

That could be the start of a legal battle that could drag on for weeks or even months, in part because the case against him in Sweden remains rather murky. Assange, who is Australian, is eager to avoid extradition for fear that it could set the stage for him to be sent to the U.S. if prosecutors there charge him with offenses relating to the WikiLeaks disclosures of State Department diplomatic cables and classified Pentagon files related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

D'oh! Already mentioned in morning links.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RyanXXX||

    I was never one of those people who was outraged about Roman Polanski "getting away" with what he did.

    But if they end up extraditing Assange, who had consensual sex with a woman who now has "lying cunt" written all over her, but let Polanski, who admits to committing rape, live happily ever after...yeesh.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Way to stay classy!

  • ||

    Read about what happened - the US authorities bungled the paperwork and didn't send requested documents. That's the main reason why extradition proceedings ceased.

  • RyanXXX||

    No, it's because Polanski didn't embarrass the rich and powerful. They're even denying him bail now because of a goddamn broken condom

  • ||

    Bullshit. Polanski just had a lot of freinds in high places.

    If you have enough powerful firends, they can ALWAYS find something wrong with the paperwork.

  • ||

    The document requests were purposefully made difficult to fulfill by the Swiss court, and were far beyond what is typical of extradition proceedings.

  • ||

    It really doesn't sound like Assange committed rape-rape.

  • RyanXXX||

    He committed "the victim tweets that she's having a great time an hour later"-rape

  • Quiet Desperation||

    But what do we know know? Is it is, or is? Is there a there there?

  • Suzi||

    Maybe not, but even if she consented and then decided later it was a bad idea because it made her feel bad, it is rape.

  • JD||

    Sex you regret later /= rape.

  • cynical||

    No, it totally is. Like, if she doesn't talk to you again until several months later, and she has a large bulge in her belly, you were raped.

  • Jeff P||

    Curious: has the LP or Cato or IJ made an official statement about this case yet?

  • Bingo||

    Quick glance at their blog has them mentioning it but hesitant to draw any sort of conclusion on it. Pretty weak response.

  • Bingo||

    Err, this is for Cato

  • .||

    Reason is mostly alone in the wilderness on this one.

  • Quiet Desperation||

    The Slashdotters are pretty much fellating the guy in effigy. Man, that's a weird phrase, but you know what I mean. Slashdot counts, right? Yes? Maybe? Not so much?

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'm not particularly thrilled with what Assange did with the information he got, but this stinks to high heaven.

  • wackyjack||

    Free Speech Hero?

    Holy shit. I mean, even if you agree that the charges are bullshit, you don't have to beatify the guy. A true free speech hero wouldn't hold more documents from release as insurance. They guy's a self-aggrandizing douche who's probably paved the way for more government secrecy down the line.

  • Bingo||

    Oh goody the old "we can't have too much transparency otherwise the government will be less transparent" argument. And claiming that self-motivated reasons reflect negatively on actions.

    You do know this is a libertarian website, right?

  • cynical||

    It sounds a lot like the logic of that Doherty post that pissed everyone off a couple of weeks back.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I think this talk about government transparency is bullshit. Transparency doesn't mean leaking each and every conversation that any member of government has with anybody. The way people on this website lionize this cretin and all the harm he has done makes me sick.

    Ayn Rand was right: libertarians are simply amoral whim worshipers who believe that freedom means the right to do whatever you want and to hell with the damage done to other people.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Give me one concrete example of the harm he has done, please. None of this hypothetical "diplomacy will be harder" bullshit.

  • Strategy Guy||

    I'm part of a team that negotiates the buying and selling of companies. Some deals have exceded $1B. If every discusion I had was made public, no deals could be made. I don't see how this is any different.

  • ||

    How 'bout the government stop making deals and JUST DO WHAT THEY ARE PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO DO?!

    Clue: It ain't much.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Wow, brilliant answer. Giving away the names of people who risk their lives to help us is moral and proper because the government should not be seeking help from them in the first place.

    And there's nothing in the constitution that says the government has any right to use force against people for such a trivial non-offenses as flying fucking airplanes into fucking buildings. Moron.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "And there's nothing in the constitution that says the government has any right to use force against people for such a trivial non-offenses as flying fucking airplanes into fucking buildings. Moron."

    Actually... Uh.... Yes... That's pretty much the main thing that the Constitution has authorized the government to do. Its role is to protect individuals from crimes like murder and willful destruction of property.

    The Constitution does NOT, however, authorize the government to go assassinate people around the world or bomb other countries and lie about it.

    That said, I think there's also a very distinct difference between Wikileaks exposing the internal speech of government people - who work on our dime after all - and exposing the internal speech of private organizations.

    I generally don't think public officials have all that much right to privacy while they're on the clock. They are "representing" us, are they not? Isn't it kind of important for us to know how we're being represented?

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    "Actually... Uh.... Yes... That's pretty much the main thing that the Constitution has authorized the government to do. Its role is to protect individuals from crimes like murder and willful destruction of property."

    I'm impressed that know a why to fight a war that doesn't involve using bombs or destroying property.

  • boomshanka||

    except these cables are redacted prior to release, after a review by journalists from 5 major papers.

    wikileaks also had previously contacted the US asking for assistance in redacting Afghan war docs, but the US refused. so whose fault is that?

  • Strategy Guy||

    I believe negotiating treaties is both a Constitutionaly permitted function of government and making deals.

  • Xenocles||

    @Nick: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors..."

    AKA making deals and appointing agents to negotiate them.

  • ||

    Treaties between the People of the United State of America and other nations are not secrets that need to be kept confidential. I didn't realize you were so dumb that you couldn't tell I implied backroom deals that were the kind governments don't want exposed because it makes them look bad.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    You silly Strategy Guy! It's freedom of speech! Or are you so naive that believe you have a right to personal privacy? It's just too fucking bad that one billion bucks down the drain, the public needs to know this stuff! For some reas... transparency! Yeah!

  • Les Maakudiehl||

    If every discusion I had was made public, no deals could be made.

    "No deals"? Why?

  • Strategy Guy||

    Because if it becomes public knowledge that a company is negotiating a sale, it will impact the stock price. It could compel key employees of the company to bail or sabotage the potential deal.

  • Bingo||

    Your salary isn't paid by taxpayers. I would think that tax-paying citizens of a government would have a vested interest in knowing how that government operates on more than just a theoretical level.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    ^this^

  • ||

    Wait for Assange to leak the contents of the stolen hard drive of Bank of America, a private company.

  • boomshanka||

    looking forward to it.

  • Virginia||

    If you're private, then you're opaque. Why can't you make the distinction between public and private?

  • ||

    Idiot, the PUBLIC sector has no right to privacy. That's only for the PRIVATE sector.

  • Miso Horny||

    "Idiot, the PUBLIC sector has no right to privacy."

    [Citation Needed]

  • ||

    You do know what public means, right?

  • Strategy Guy||

    I understand the difference. My point is that negotiation -- wheter it be part of a portfolio strategy or a trade deal between two nations, demands that not everything going on be made public in real time.

  • ||

    What negotiation should the government be making that needs to be private? None. If the government is doing something it can't tell us about, it shouldn't be doing it.

  • robc||

    Assange isnt American. I would feel no qualms about publishing Australian secrets that I happen to come into my possession.

    And if your companys' secrets were sent to me? As Im not an employee of it, once again, I would publish away.

  • Strategy Guy||

    And you would go to jail.

  • ||

    Might makes right FTW.

  • robc||

    And you would go to jail.

    No I wouldnt.

  • ||

    I'm sure as hell not going to respect the "privacy" of a government that asserts the right to listen in on my conversations and read my emails without a warrant.

    And in any case, claiming that the leaked cables represent conversations necessary to diplomatic activity is bogus. How again is comparing Putin and Medvedev to Batman and Robin necessary to our diplomatic mission? The things read like random clippings from a gorram chat room.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Giving away the names of informants who have helped the coalition fight people who would happily kill an infidel like you for one thing. And yes stealing a quarter of a million diplomatic cables and releasing them into the public domain will do great harm (diplomacy has always been hard). And keeping some of them secret (what a hero of free speech!) to use as blackmail fodder makes him look more like some terrible parody villain than a hero. And recently he's also released the location of infrastructure like oil pipelines that Al Qaeda will find very handy.

    The bottom line is that releasing names of people who've helped us, releasing the locations of gas pipelines in troubled parts of the word, etc has NOTHING to do with government transparency and you know it. What constructive purpose does it possibly serve? Why do you and I need to know the names of people who've provided invaluable information to those who fight and die to keep you free?

  • ||

    If you think they're keeping us free by protecting oil pipelines, I guess we differ on what it means to be defended.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I'm going ask you again: who does revealing the location of (privately owned) oil pipelines further the sacred cause of government transparency? The only people who'll find that information useful are those nihilist, subhuman savages who, I'll say this again: mean you and I great harm. Why is this guy a hero of free speech for helping them?

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I'm flapping my arms and jumping up and down as hard as I can! WHY WON'T ANYONE PAY ATTENTION TO ME?!?

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    *clap clap clap* Pretending to be another person and writing a moronic comment? Yeah I guess you've really answered the question, haven't you? Pathetic.

  • ||

    Giving away the names of informants who have helped the coalition fight people who would happily kill an infidel like you for one thing.

    Like who? I hear this claim all the time but never hear even one name.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Because there hasn't been one.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I didn't say that Mohamed Suicide Bomber is going to come to your front door and kill you, I'm saying that these people who love death as we infidels love life would kill you without shedding a tear (and if you check out religionofpeace ARE killing us on a daily basis).

    Why are people who claim they love liberty lionizing somebody who does so much to undermine those who fight (And I mean fight, not write blog posts) to keep us free?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Cause they aren't - generally - fighting to "keep us free"!!

    They are fighting to perpetuate an imperialistic foreign policy that benefits a handful of public & private interests at the expense of us all.

    And they are doing so in ways that actively galvanize the radical elements that would kill us "without shedding a tear"... The actions the US Government has been taking around the world for decades have made us *LESS SAFE*, not more! It's worth knowing the sordid underbelly of all of that if we ever hope to stand even the slightest chance about putting an end to it and getting this country back on a sound footing.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    That's right 9/11 was not the work of Al Qaeda it was a conspiracy by... to fight a pointless war to...

  • ||

    Very few people here think 9/11 was done by anyone other than Al Qaeda. However, the federal govt was quite opportunistic to use 9/11 to galvanize support for policies they couldn't have pushed through while America was thinking straight. Most of the Patriot Act was crafted by the Clinton DOJ in the mid/late 90s...but they could never get it out of committee until after 9/11.

  • ||

    That's my take on it. I confess I haven't gone to the website and waded through the stuff, but I hear the names are actually redacted.

    If that's incorrect, then of course one of our uber-patriots should have no trouble supplying a few names.

  • ||

    My reply was to Montani Semper Liberi.

  • Bingo||

    Apparently Jihad McRaghead sitting in a cave in the middle of Bumfuck, Afghanistan is going to get tactically decisive information from a diplomatic leak that was sat on for months for being public. This is after downloading it on his non-existent internet connection and parsing and deciphering the 200,000+ documents using whatever trashbin relic of a computer he has.

    "DURR ITS ENDANGERING THE TROOPS!" Bullshit. The troops being in a firefight with an enemy with nothing to lose on the enemy's home turf is endangering the troops.

  • Ska||

    PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Giving away the names of informants who have helped the coalition fight people who would happily kill an infidel like you for one thing.

    Remind me who we are at war with again, Mr.Nobody; it is Eurasia or Eastasia?

  • Almanian||

    Kamchatka and Western Europe.

    And Madagascar if I turn in my cards on the next turn and get more armies.

  • Ska||

    Do you really think Kamchatka will hold up against my Irkutskian warriors?

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Who are we at war with? The people who openly admit they want to establish a global caliphate. And those people who apparently caused a smidgen of damage in downtown New York a few years ago.

    And Al Qaeda is not made up of ragheads without access to the internet, they are people who use explosive devices and fight against what is supposed to be the strongest military in the world on a daily basis. Granted the big bad "colonial oppressors" are doing a rather admirable job ripping them to pieces and ensuring that Iraqis have a chance to have a taste of what people like you take for granted but I still don't know (and nobody has explained to me why) releasing information like this is constrictive of furthers this goal of transparency?

    And is anybody here seriously going to tell me that diplomatic cables, the locations of privately owned gas pipelines, troop movements and informants need to be made public? Why? You've been evading the question for the last 20 minutes now tell me: why? And why would a free speech hero withhold information (what's that called, government opacity?) to use as blackmail material? Free speech hero my fucking arse.

  • Virginia||

    "the locations of privately owned gas pipelines"

    I'm not sure that stuff wasn't publicly available already. I thought the big hubbub was over releasing a list of assets considered "weak" by US security standards.

    "troop movements"

    What? Is this like the claim that US soldiers' SSNs were released?

    "and informants"

    The names are being redacted as they are released.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Yahoo News says the information was already public yes, but that's not the same as putting it all together into one document coupled with a little nod and a wink with what to do with it.

    I just wish one person here would answer my question: in what why is this constructive? What have you and I gained from this? Why are people who boast they love liberty lionizing a man who furthers the cause of those who hang women for the crime of showing their hair in public?

  • robc||

    in what why is this constructive?

    Why the fuck does it have to be constructive? You are as much a fucking tyrant as the fucks banning Everclear. Fuck off slaver.

    What have you and I gained from this?

    Why the fuck would you or I expect to gain anything from this. It is his action, it wasnt done for our benefit.

    Why are people who boast they love liberty lionizing a man who furthers the cause of those who hang women for the crime of showing their hair in public?

    He isnt furthering their cause. He is publishing info some traitor sent him. As he isnt American, why he should give a fuck about keeping American secrets secret is beyond my understanding.

    If we were in a war, I might feel a bit differently. But as our congresspussies refuse to declare one, tough shit.

  • Bingo||

    Right, month old troop movement reports are of enormous tactical use, gas pipelines are very hard to locate and appear by magic without any large obvious construction equipment, and Assange never asked the government to help censor the names of informants prior to release, and profit motive means that the whole leaking thing is just evil from the get go.

    What's it like living in fantasy land?

  • robc||

    Who are we at war with?

    No one. We havent had a war since 1945.

  • Miso Horny||

    War on Poverty; War on Drugs; War on Obesity, etc...

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    All just parts of the War On Liberty, which we are clearly winning, so we got that going for us.

  • Fluffy||

    I want access to any and all information concerning all activities undertaken with taxpayer funds.

    You don't get to decide in advance what I will and will not find important. Only I can decide that, and I can only decide it AFTER I see the information.

    You're approaching the question from entirely the wrong perspective: the assumption that what the state does should be secret, and that I have to justify the absence of secrecy. It's the reverse.

    After the nearly-daily-revelations of 4th amendment abuses, violations of the law against using taxpayer funds for propaganda, torture, rendition, etc., from the last administration, our government has absolutely no credit with me to claim that anything should be secret. That whole "trust us, we mean well" thing is out the window now. Gone.

  • Vaccine||

    Nobody -

    You ask why should these cables be published? Given that we have something called the First Amendment, you've got the burden of proof ALL BACKWARD. You've got to show why they SHOULDN'T be published; Assange doesn't have to show shit.

  • ||

    Hey Nobody,
    So perhaps we should reconsider our foreign policy? You know, if we were a neutral country, I imagine very few people would care much about attacking us, and we wouldn't have troops scattered across the globe in dangerous situations. If our foreign policy is damaged by WikiLeaks, I'd say most of us here thing that's a great outcome because we hate the policy (like we do with most other government policies). Being the world's policeman has many detrimental and unintended consequences, the potential revelation of embarrassing information being a very minor one compared to terrorism, risk to our troops in uniform, human rights violations, dead civilians and resentment/retaliation from their friends and family members, having a target painted on our backs, debt, corruption, etc. etc. etc.

    But, by all means, shoot the messenger.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Yes, Al Qaeda has never launched terrorist attacks on neutral countries have they? It's all the fault of the big bad colonial oppressors! Surrender now and Al Qaeda will dissolve overnight and it's members will move on to run ice cream trucks! What fucking planet are you people living on?

  • ||

    yes, neutral countries like Luxembourg or Bolivia have THE AL QAEDAS running around all the time blowing shit up, didn't you know?

  • ||

    Not that I recall, and why would they? The neutral countries aren't the ones killing their children or parents with bombs and trying to force a Western lifestyle on them at gunpoint. Not that them having a Western lifestyle would be a bad thing, mind you - but trade and technology > military force in bringing about positive social change. China still sucks but it's not the cultural Revolution anymore; Russia sucks but it's not the USSR; etc.

  • BWM||

    I'm going to chip in here and say, yes, actually. According the Al-Queda experts from the FBI and the CIA, Al-Queda is basically a large, loose coalition. Different groups often times ever fight each other, but they are generally united by a hatred for western intervention in Muslim countries, particularly American actions. This why Switzerland never worries about terrorist attacks, and why I have, post-911, personally walked back and forth across the border of Switzerland and France with the security booths locked up and empty. So, according to the experts of the American intelligence communities, you are correct in that it IS the fault of colonial oppressors and Al-Queda WOULD die out if we straighted up our act.

  • robc||

    The bottom line is that releasing names of people who've helped us

    Assange is not part of "us". The guy who sent him the docs, he gets to spend his life in Leavenworth and Im okay with that. The same doesnt apply to Assange.

  • Almanian||

    ^^what robc said, right there^^

  • robc||

    Notice the anti-Assange people never respond to this point.

    Never.

    Its like they wouldnt have published soviet secrets in 1987. I sure the fuck would have. Or Chinese secrets today. If some Burmese dissident sends me 100k documents (and I spoke Burmese and could translate) I would have them on the internet as fast as possible.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    United States = Soviet Union? Yeah, you people truly understand what liberty is don't you?

  • robc||

    To an australian, maybe.

    That isnt the point. Foreign countries are foreign countries. Are you going to reply to the point or not?

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    To what? Would I have released Soviet secrets in the 80s if I had access to them? No. That would serve no constructive purpose. I would pass them on to the relevant authorities of course, it's always handy for the people who protect our freedoms (if you'll excuse my crazy language) to have information about the people who wish to destroy us.

    And now I've answered your question maybe you (or anybody) can finally answer mine: what useful purpose does Wikileaks' behavior serve? What is the point in releasing massive amounts of private information just for the sake of it?

  • Ska||

    Protecting our freedoms by limiting them on a regular basis.....and it's the other posters that have strange ideas here.

  • robc||

    I answered it up above you fuckwit? Cant you fucking read?

    3:21, 13 minutes before your post.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Why the fuck does it have to be constructive? You are as much a fucking tyrant as the fucks banning Everclear. Fuck off slaver.

    Yeah brilliant answer. You know a lot of big person words too, don't you?

  • robc||

    The worst tyrants in the world are those that only allow behavior that "has a point".

  • robc||

    And now I've answered your question

    You didnt. Well, technically I didnt ask any questions, but here is what you didnt respond to:

    Assange is not part of "us". The guy who sent him the docs, he gets to spend his life in Leavenworth and Im okay with that. The same doesnt apply to Assange.

  • ||

    If everything is a secret, how can we hold the government accountable, ever? I guess we should nod our heads and accept everything they say?

    We are the bosses, not them. They answer to us.

  • ||

    "What useful purpose does Wikileaks' behavior serve? What is the point in releasing massive amounts of private information just for the sake of it?"

    It functions as a citizen's spy agency and as the means for us to know about our overclassified, corrupt, expensive and secretive foreign policy and that of other countries. Put it all on the table, so we can decide which politicians to elect who control the policy.

    If you think WikiLeaks has no point, what's the point of any news agency? We could still live in ignorant bliss without them, right?

  • BWM||

    There was just a post on reason a few days ago about this. The entire purpose is to cripple the ability of the US to behave in such a manner, where they operate on a plane completely seperated from public oversight. The ideal would be, of course, for the US to stop abusing their powers, but the next bet, and the more likely one, is that the US will have more difficulty operating dishonestly, as they have been.

  • ||

    If you think the United States is the embodiment of liberty *or ever has been*, perhaps YOU are the one who doesn't understand liberty, my friend.

  • Miso Horny||

    Accesory after a crime is a crime.

  • wackyjack||

    I'm saying the guy is a self-aggrandizing douchebag and has no intention of furthering transparency.

    He's intentionally witholding documents because he's trying to blackmail the governments into fearing him or some shit. That's not the actions of a "free speech hero."

    You can approve of what he did, but stop making him some modern day Ghandi. He's opposed to the US, he's not on the side of libertarianism or even liberty.

  • ||

    Ghandi can screw himself.

  • ||

    This is a bit silly: "see, he's not revealing all the information he has, he must not be for free speech!!11"

    It's just like the idiots who complain that Assange is only targeting nations that won't try to assassinate him. Ooooh I guess we shouldn't support him since he's not willing to commit suicide.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Yes, that information was not stored in a 256-bit encrypted file called, what was it, insurance?

  • ||

    Somewhere in cyberspace, a FreeRepublic is missing its idiot.

    But don't leave, I'm sure posting the same drivel under 5 or even 6 more handles is going to convince us any minute now.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Brilliant answer. You've showed me the error of my ways! I'm sorry I made up that nonsense about a non-existent file. I'm sorry I claimed that Asswad has openly admitted that a free speech hero like himself is purposely keeping hundreds of thousands of documents secret that will magically appear if he's ever prosecuted. I don't know where I come up with this stuff from.

  • ||

    Asswad? Oh... I see... instead of "Assange." Clever. Did you think of that yourself?

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Another brilliant answer. For some strange reason I thought you would evade answering for a second time.

  • ||

    I'm sorry. What was I supposed to answer? Because I'll tell you right now I have no idea why you are a such an internet tuff gai. Probably a poor upbringing. When your dad fucked you in the ass, was he wearing a Reagan Halloween mask? That can really warp a kid, you know.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I got it from this blog and from that man's very mouth. See Barry D's comment below.

  • ||

    SugarFree,
    It's compensation for other deficiencies.

  • CatoTheElder||

    This isn't a Freeper. He writes in complete, grammatically correct sentences and uses profanity to fit in with the irreverent style of Reason's commenters.

    This sounds more like the sort of the "cognitive infiltration" via disinformation proposed by Cass Sunstein in his "Conspiracy Theories" paper.

  • ||

    Yes, Nobody, probably much of the stuff contained within is uncensored. It takes time to censor/edit material and judge what is and isn't worthy of release - had the State Department worked with WikiLeaks, much of this could have been avoided.

    Assange is protecting himself from being killed/prosecuted/etc. by saying "if you do this, global diplomacy will be irreparably damaged, sources will be revealed, etc." Can't blame him for that self-defense, and it doesn't diminish his impact as a free speech hero either.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Of course; when a cult of personality develops around person nothing they do can ever be wrong. And thanks for finally answering the question of why this man's actions are constructive and necessary.

  • ||

    I never said Assange is a saint or perfect, I said what he's doing is both legal (at least would be in a free society) and damages the reputation of people in power who will want to off him or jail him by any means necessary. He's simply got to play hardball to maintain his rights.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    And if I'm not mistaken that's called blackmail. Not traditionally considered very "heroic" behavior.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Here it is: http://www.wired.com/threatlev.....ance-file/

    Yeah, what a hero!

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Several media outlets have found the names of Afghan informants in the documents WikiLeaks published, as well as information identifying their location in some instances. A Taliban spokesman told Britain’s Channel 4 news that the group was sifting through the WikiLeaks documents to get the names of suspected informants and would punish anyone found to have collaborated with the United States and its allies.

    Damn! Even Wired is making up silly stories!

  • Bingo||

    Blackmail is setting documents aside and threatening to release them if you are imprisoned or assassinated? That's blackmail in your mind?!

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Just like Bender said "I prefer to called it extortion. The x makes it sound cool!"

    Just out of interest what do you call it? Leaving this encrypted "insurance" file around and threatening to release its key if anything happens to him (like, if he's prosecuted for the rather trivial crime of releasing war logs)? That's not blackmail, it's...

  • rts||

    ... insurance?

  • ||

    Nobody saw this retard coming.

    Come on Mr. internet tuff gai, you're not convincing anyone.

  • ||

    And "stop releasing government information or we'll imprison/kill you" isn't blackmail?

  • robc||

    Im generally a big fan of self-aggrandizing douchebags.

    Free speech includes choosing not to speek. Witholding some documents meets that.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Especially when "not speaking" is done for the purpose of blackmailing and making sure he's never brought to justice. Just makes him seem even more heroic, doesn't it?

  • ||

    If remaining silent about certain things/sitting on damaging information allows him to continue to live and speak freely and continue vocally attacking government secrecy, sure.

  • ||

    when people misspell Gandhi, it's hilarious, cause Ghand means testicles, and Ghandi means someone who enjoys testicles.
    Gha is a much different sound than Ga

  • ||

    He DID hold more documents from release as insurance. Don't you read the papers?

    From the New York Times:

    That left unclear whether a more serious threat would be carried out. In recent days, Mr. Assange has asserted that “over 100,000 people” had downloaded the entire archive of 251,287 cables in encrypted form. Only around 1,000 of the cables have so far been released; in many, names of sources who might be compromised or endangered were redacted.

    “If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically,” Mr. Assange wrote in a question-and-answer session on the Web site of the British newspaper The Guardian. Mr. Stephens, the lawyer, reiterated that warning on Tuesday saying a “a virtual network” of “thousands of journalists” around the world would ensure that the rest of the documents would be published.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12.....mp;emc=rss

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Oh no! Somebody is making up the same silly story as me!

  • ||

    Poor post title. Here's a better one: The Empire Strikes Back.

    Assange will be encased in carbonite and hung on the queen's wall.

  • Guest||

    +1

  • ||

    Assange's mousy-looking ass ain't no Harrison Ford. I'm sort of amazed he could convince two different women to fuck him in the first place. [ / ohnoesbodysnarking!!1! ]

  • Warty||

    Much less the hot crazy broad we were talking about earlier. He should have known that it was a trap when he realized that a woman as cute as that one wanted to do him.

  • ||

    She might be one of those no-chin fetishists.

  • ||

    They are out there.

  • ||

    That's why you have the beard, isn't it? Tired of your non-chin being objectified?

  • ||

    No, the beard sexualized it even more. I had ladies throwing themselves at my face all the time.

  • BakedPenguin||

    She might be one of those no-chin fetishists.

    Or just hot for albino.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Even at that point, he was kind of a celebrity, and a semi-outlaw one at that. So you have the star-fucking & bad boy things going on.

  • ||

    And he could appeal to women with a plucked chicken fetish.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Wow, look at that gizzard!"

  • ||

    A name like "Julian Assange" is itself a major chick magnet.

  • cynical||

    Should have been the first clue that he was being set up. That said, he does have a kid.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Dagny... He's Australian. That's all you need to know.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Dagny... He's Australian. That's all you need to know.

  • Tim||

    +2

  • ||

    You people deifying Assange have some serious cranio-rectal inversion going on. a) the state department cables are, at best, gossip. At worst, they may get some people arrested or killed (which Assange famously could care less about) b) Gennifer Flowers rides again, reminding us all that the biggest difference between 'rape victim' and 'lying cunt' is the relative politics of accuser and accused. And finally, c) In personality and politics, Assange is the evil hacker in Die Hard 4, not Luke Skywalker.

    Get a grip.

  • ||

    What do you mean by "you people"?

  • wackyjack||

    Easy now. Are you sure you're not just being an overreacting diabetic?

  • ||

    Sorry. I'm busy trying to get a grip.

  • Almanian||

    Try using less lubricant next time

  • ||

    Stacy will yell at me. Semi-coherently.

  • Almanian||

    Here, let me help you with your grip, then...

  • ||

    TSA?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Who will get killed or arrested because of the State Department cables? That argument was at least plausible with the Afghan info. It's troll shit here.

  • wackyjack||

    He's not the hacker, he's the douche who hired the hackers then shot them when they were no longer of use to him.

  • cynical||

    "b) Gennifer Flowers rides again, reminding us all that the biggest difference between 'rape victim' and 'lying cunt' is the relative politics of accuser and accused. "

    Speaking of women playing fast and loose with the facts in order to get their way, Gennifer Flowers alleged an affair, not rape.

  • ||

    The Clinton bimbos tend to blur together after all these years. I assume he meant Juanita Broderick.

  • Virginia||

    The DH4 villain was a disgruntled Federal employee trying to hack the personal data of all Americans. Assange is much more like Wonder Man... using his super powers to get his alter-ego laid. The FBI reminds me of the Diehard 4 villain.

  • Almanian||

    Die Hard 4 Villain = Timothy Olyphant, yes? He was epic as the "Hitman".

  • ||

    LOL, I remember Wonder Man. TV Funhouse was so awesome.

  • Liu Xiaobo||

    Free Speech Hero?

    Um, no.

  • Liu Xiaobo||

    BTW, when are you gonna put up some posts about the actual leaker?

  • Liu Xiaobo||

    Because just like me, his freedom has been taken away.

  • PFC Bradley Manning||

    I'm the invisible Manning.

  • Liu Xiaobo||

    No, your Assange's fall guy.

  • ||

    And I'm the invisible cornerback who's going to pick you off for a quick six.

  • Warty||

    Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called "sex by surprise" or "unexpected sex."

    Is it Something Awful that auto-replaces the word "rape" with "surprise sex"?

  • Almanian||

    I could go for some "sex by surprise"...but that's just me

  • Thick Johnson||

    I'll keep that in mind, meat.

  • Almanian||

    ruh roh....

  • Pip||

    I'd settle for a pre-determined Old Fashioned.

  • ||

    "Unexpected sex" is a crime? Sounds more like poor handicapping.

  • Pat Mcgroin||

    sounds more like the new dance craze, the TSA.

  • 0x90||

    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

  • ||

    You know, surprise buttsex

  • ||

    Nobody saw this coming...

  • Wind Rider||

    Nice photo. He looks like a pilot telling a "shooting the wristwatch" story of aerial daring-doo-doo.

  • Pat Mcgroin||

    "Bobby, did you ever see a grown man naked?"

  • JOhnny MAckson||

    I moonlighted as a robotic arm at a Saab factory a few years ago. Bot meets car. Car invites bot over for drinks. Bot inserts giant metal phalange in car's tail pipe. No protection. FML

    Jess
    www.anonz.com

  • Pip||

    You da Bot, man.

  • ||

    This is art. It's another industry that humans are now not the best at performing.

  • ||

    I don't think "free speech hero" is out of line. He's a publisher. He knew publishing what he did was highly dangerous, and has been effectively living on the lam for years. He is being jailed on trumped-up felony charges for something he published.

    If that isn't a free speech hero, what is?

    Sure, he's a jerk. So? Jerks can't be heros?

  • PFC Bradley Manning||

    No.

  • Liu Xiaobo||

    "If that isn't a free speech hero, what is?"

    A guy jailed in China for blogging?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....TopOpinion

    Or a women in Cuba jailed for supporting the Ladies in White?

    http://www.humanrightscuba.com.....nt-jo.html

  • ||

  • Liu Xiaobo||

    So your point is that their husbands aren't really in Cuban prisions? Fine. Let's see you diminish me, asshole.

  • ||

    If you were him, I'd have some respect. But since you are just an spoofing cockdrip, go fuck a woodchipper.

  • Ska||

    Sex by surprise?

  • Liu Xiaobo||

    Wow. Just wow.

  • Almanian||

    So you tried the woodchipper thing?

    Never, never, never look at Sugarfree's links, either (when they work).

  • ||

    Click it. You know you want to.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Looks like one a them grape knee-highs.

  • Pat Mcgroin||

    damn, that's my missing sock!

  • Red Hacker Alliance||

    China strong.
    You die soon.
    We get your organs.

  • RyanXXX||

    Goddamn this is such an obvious CIA op it's like they're not even trying

  • ||

    A guy jailed in China for blogging?

    The distinction between being jailed in China for blogging and being jailed in England for fronting WikiLeaks is a little unclear to me, free-speech-wise.

  • ||

    Assange is being jailed for surprise penis, not founding WikiLeaks.

  • ||

    You just go on believing that, Tulpa.

  • Pat Mcgroin||

    is it surprise penis or penis surprise?

  • ||

    Somebody needs to google "hyperbole" stat.

  • ||

    Also, not directed directly at you, R C.

  • ||

    Also "directed directly" is a bit awkward (if not redundant).

  • Grammar Nazi||

    What are you doing?!? I got a family to feed here...

  • ||

    I just read somewhere else that the U.S. is hosting a conference on freedom of the press in May. Only a poltician could miss the irony.

  • .||

    Because the U.S. is totalitarian state, right? You're one of the reasons nobody takes libertarians seriously.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Not totalitarian yet, but give them time; they're working on it.

    Net neutrality? Fairness doctrine? "Freedom of the press"?

  • ||

    And you're why I don't take statists seriously. What do you call a country where the president--a "liberal" one at that--openly asserts that he can whack anybody anytime with no due process or even a thin layer of judicial oversight? Where he can spy on anybody with no accountability whatsoever? Where he can ignore the country's constitution with utter impunity?

    You think you're free because you get to choose a new master every four years? Really?

  • Trespassers W||

    Because the U.S. is totalitarian state, right? You're one of the reasons nobody takes libertarians seriously.

    You're the one who jumped to conclusions and invoked the t-word. Sandwich made a much milder implication.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, let's wait until "totalitarian" does apply to our country before speaking out. That's a great fucking plan.

  • Almanian||

    You know who else waited to speak out until "totalitarian" applied to their country....

  • .||

    Chicken Little?

  • ||

    In an even more ironic twist, I believe it is focusing on "21st century" media.

    From the Dept. of State press release:
    New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information.

  • Trespassers W||

    See, that's just comedy gold.

  • ||

    Maybe the Australian government can work out a deal with the Swedes to send him back to Oz to be tried. I hear sex without a condom is a bootable offense there.

  • Vern Shillinger||

    he can bunk with me!

  • Jeff P||

    Assange's fate doesn't matter. He is Australian, so he has no soul...

  • Almanian||

    How can he be Australian if he's not named Bruce?

    Maybe Bruce is his middle name...

  • Almanian||

    Again - till I know this evul, unclean terminator's DOG is dead, I will not feel safe.

    The photo made me think, "SAFETY DANCE!" We need Evil Villains who LOOK like Evil Villains. He looks like a mid-80's-Safety-Dance-Brit-Fag-Rock dude.

    Also, FUCK tha po-lice.

  • N.W.A.||

    Fuck the security guard.

  • N.W.H.||

    That's N.W.H., bitch.

  • Ska||

    One of the funniest things I've ever heard was when I was playing darts in Woodside. The speakers started playing Foreigner, at which point an Irish guy jumps up from the bar, points, and yells "FAG AT THE JUKEBOX!"

    That's how you make sure people don't play shitty music.

  • Almanian||

    That made me fucking LOL. Irish are almost as funny as the Scots. Almost...

  • cynical||

    That's why you stack that stuff behind good stuff (or songs that other people put in).

  • RyanXXX||

    His accuser may (I'm not saying I necessarily buy it) have ties to Langley:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....-cia-ties/

    She is hot, though.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Swedish women often do have a way of being pretty smokin' hot.

  • Warty||

  • Almanian||

    That there is some fine synchronized hair twirlin' at the start

  • Trespassers W||

    I can't open the link but I'm guessing it's not Opeth then. Meshuggah?

  • Warty||

    Amon Amarth. Meshuggah is terrible.

  • Knutsack||

    Honestly, I thought that was some kind of parody at first. How wrong I was...I think. Or was it meant to be ironic? I'm so confused I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.

  • Warty||

    I saw them play once. During the show, they drank beer out of enormous plastic horns and told the crowd, "Cleeve-land, you have the true spirit of a wiking!" It's safe to say that they're not quite serious.

  • Pat Mcgroin||

    a chiropractor's dream...

  • ||

    And to think I was expecting ABBA...

  • ||

  • Warty||

    That hurts me deeply.

  • BakedPenguin||

    What, no Europe?

  • Almanian the Mick||

    FAG AT HE BAR!!!!

  • Warty||

  • ||

    Norwegian garage, 'cause Sweden can't get all the action.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C38x0ZkVQwM

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    http://www.wired.com/threatlev.....ance-file/

    Several media outlets have found the names of Afghan informants in the documents WikiLeaks published, as well as information identifying their location in some instances. A Taliban spokesman told Britain’s Channel 4 news that the group was sifting through the WikiLeaks documents to get the names of suspected informants and would punish anyone found to have collaborated with the United States and its allies.

    Damn! Even Wired is making up silly stories!

  • RyanXXX||

    According to you, though, if he had withheld those names he wouldn't believe in free speech. Right?

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Freedom of speech means the right to criticize people without fear of government persecution, it does not mean mean the right to publicize classified information of that impedes those who are (and you may laugh) fighting to keep us free and helps those who wish to kill us. This just makes look like an even bigger cretin.

    By the way if somebody "leaked" the design of a nuclear weapon would that be OK? No? FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!

  • ||

    More of this. It's hilarious.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    So are your wonderful non-responses.

  • ||

    You never answered my question either.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    What question, "post more of this".

    Even Slate's talking a little sense:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2277096/

    Booh hoo, poor Asswad the martyr to the "colonial oppressors". And what kind of fucking pathetic title is that?

  • ||

    I'm bored. You may go now.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Yeah, what a brilliant non-answer. I wish I could debate as well as you.

  • ||

    Not only is this guy oblivious to people not caring about his hand-waving, he's also oblivious to humorous blog post titles. Go figure.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Well I've had a remarkable number of angry responses from people who don't care. I wish I knew more people who had such a passionate sense of not caring about things.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Here's the voice of reason:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2276857/

  • ||

    Wow so if Assange doesn't turn himself in to go to jail for a trumped up charge, then he's a megalomaniac who's just doing all this to make money? It all makes so much sense now...

  • ||

    BTW, he did turn himself in, so whatever idiotic point you're trying to make is moot.

  • ||

    Slate is the voice of reason. Now I've heard it all. Again, nothing more than a blanket assertion that govt goals are to be respected without even knowing what they are, which is of course impossible.

    Bottom line: A govt with secrets is not accountable to the governed and is thus illegitimate. Yes, some of the govt efforts will be more difficult when done transparently but that is just too bad.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    "Slate is the voice of reason. Now I've heard it all"

    Well if you bothered to click on the link you'd find it linked to Christopher Hitchen's column... which just happened to be in Slate. Hitch knows one or two more things about the Islamist threat that libertarians so vehemently deny exists.

    And how does a government function if nothing, NOTHING is allowed to kept secret? How do you expect people to help us if they know for a fact their names and addresses will be given to disappearers? How is a military to function if there every action must be immediately published for their enemies to read? How thick are you?

  • Fluffy||

    Yes.

    Absolutely.

    The simple fact of the matter is that our republic, to be legitimate, must rest on the consent of the governed.

    I can't consent to what has been deliberately hidden from me. By definition.

    The government works for me. It undertakes its activities using my money.

    A state which purports to rest on the consent of the governed but which declares "secret" as many of its activities as ours does is basically asserting its own illegitimacy up front.

    Our government has abused its power to declare information secret far, far too many times for me to take its complaints seriously NOW. "Wah, wah, there are informants whose names are on these documents!" Fuck you, you should have thought of that when you were hiding the existence of the FISA wiretaps from me.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I hope you didn't just say "yes, it's important that nuclear weapons designs be released so I can know what my government is doing". You guys are loopy.

  • ||

    Ever thought of asking if any government should have nuclear weapons in the first place? No? Wow, you sure do love sucking government cock don't you?

  • Fluffy||

    That's exactly what I just said.

    It's an idiotic example anyway since the details of nuclear weapon design are well known.

    But let's say they weren't.

    The war party never ceases in attempting to trump up a casus belli against Iran by arguing that Iran is seeking to produce a nuclear weapon.

    In order for me to be able to know whether their claims are credible, I need to know how a nuclear weapon is made, and whether the types of activities Iran is undertaking will, in fact, give them the capability to make one.

    "Iran is building a weapon 'cause we say they are" doesn't cut it when it's coming from the mouths of looter scum. Who have proven that they will lie outright at every opportunity. Sorry.

    I would, of course, be very interested to hear you expound on your theory of government, so you can explain to me how you judge the activities of the state, when it doesn't actually tell you anything about what it's doing.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I never said that the state should never tell me what it's doing I'm saying that when people are fighting to protect us against those who mean us harm, leaking documents that help our opponents doesn't benefit me in any way. Or: WHY do I need to know where Afghanistan informants live? What point does it serve except to help the Taliban track them down and murder them (as they told channel 4 they are)? What is the fucking point?

    I don't know if you'll understand or accept this but some things do need to be kept secret yes. And since Iran is waiting for the 12th Imam (read: Armageddon) and their proxy thugs Hezbollah are now using a mushroom cloud as there emblem I think we should be a bit more concerned with Iran having nukes than the US having them.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I never said that the state should never tell me what it's doing I'm saying that when people are fighting to protect us against those who mean us harm, leaking documents that help our opponents doesn't benefit me in any way. Or: WHY do I need to know where Afghanistan informants live? What point does it serve except to help the Taliban track them down and murder them (as they told channel 4 they are)? What is the fucking point?

    I don't know if you'll understand or accept this but some things do need to be kept secret yes. And since Iran is waiting for the 12th Imam (read: Armageddon) and their proxy thugs Hezbollah are now using a mushroom cloud as there emblem I think we should be a bit more concerned with Iran having nukes than the US having them.

  • BWM||

    I agree with you, to an extent. Current or upcoming troop movements, weapon schematics, locations of VIPs, etc, are all things I could support keeping secret in most cases. I do NOT support keeping secret anything they feel like, and the leaks prove that's what they did; illegal spying, for one, off-hand comments, for another, and proof that some of these people are massive, lying asshats. These things are not okay to hide from us; if we want, say, peace with Russia, our own government should not be pissing them off, classifying the information, and calling Russia a bunch of liars if they mention it. Wikileaks, recognizing a distinction, asked the State Department to work with them on redacting any and all information that may lead to direct harm, and the department refused. They WANTED Wikileaks, if they were going to release the info, to release damaging info, as a tool to use against them.

  • ||

    So... who gets to decide when we are undermining a government and it's a good thing (afghanistan) vs. when it's a bad thing (central america). either way, the people should know what their government is doing. You have provided no argument whatsoever in defense of government secrets other than blanket assertions of the sanctity of the govt's goals. Which can only be evaluated when they are not conducted in secret...

  • ||

    First they came for the rapists, and I was silent, because I always got consent.

    Next they came for the condom breakers, and I was silent, because I always use Duramax.

    Then they came for the sexual surprisers, but I was silent, because I'm boring in the sack.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

    [Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]

    Amen to that.

  • ||

    I'm not sure Ayn Rand would support the ability of the state to operate in secret. Either way, you're a fucktard.

    But go on, keep quoting Ayn Rand. Dance clown! Dance!

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    How fucking thick are you? Do we need a military? Should the military disclose its every action when fighting to protect us? If the answer is yes then you have no right to live in a free country if the answer is no then leaking these documents is not an act of preventing the state from operating in secret.

  • ||

    YES you fucking idiot! The military should have nothing to hide if it is just protecting us from threats! Why is that so hard to comprehend???

  • ||

    And how the fuck do I not have a right to live in a free country if I think the military should not be able to do anything it wants, if I think that government should be accountable to the public in everything it does. Get that baton out of your ass, internet tuff gai!

  • Ray Pew||

    Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

    [Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]

    Amen to that.

    While I like alot of Rand's works, she was still imperfect and made numerous ignorant statements, such as the above statement concerning libertarians, anarchism and capitalism. Her anger towards Rothbard and those who fell out of favor with Objectivism is blatant in this passage.

    Rand had little problem in advocating aggression against others who did not meet her definition of "rational". See her defense of the treatment of American Indians for an example.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    I'd say there are other reasons to fight against Jihadists then their disdain of reason. reasons like "they are trying to kill us". Just saying.

  • Ray Pew||

    I'd say there are other reasons to fight against Jihadists then their disdain of reason. reasons like "they are trying to kill us". Just saying.

    And your post had nothing to do with what I stated. Where did I mention "jihadists"?

  • BWM||

    I never saw her advocate aggression against anyone. She was arrogant, of that there is no doubt, and she had no problem squarely fighting anyone with different ideas than her own, but I never saw he as getting angry. And I don't think she was ignorant about Rothbardian libertarianism, but if you disagree, can we at least admit that's an issue where reasonable people CAN disagree?

  • Ray Pew||

    I never saw her advocate aggression against anyone. She was arrogant, of that there is no doubt, and she had no problem squarely fighting anyone with different ideas than her own, but I never saw he as getting angry. And I don't think she was ignorant about Rothbardian libertarianism, but if you disagree, can we at least admit that's an issue where reasonable people CAN disagree?

    "They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."- Address to West Point, 1974

  • Fluffy||

    Ayn Rand's masterwork has as its climax a scene where a corrupt and collapsing state proves its moral illegitimacy by torturing the hero at a secret government facility.

    In 2011, Nobody saw this coming attempts to prove to us his Objectivist bona fides by proudly standing up for the secrecy and torture rights of a looter state.

    Bravo. Bra...vo.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    What the fuck does that have to do with releasing secret documents that undermine coalition efforts to fight Islamist terrorists who openly boast they want to kill people like you? What fucking planet are you living on? Ayn Rand was anti-statist not anti-state. She recognizes the necessity to use force against those who harm us and those who mean us harm; leaking documents that help our enemies, the enemies of freedom, should not be lauded by people who dare to claim they support liberty as the highest value.

  • ||

    This guy's stuck in 2003.

  • Nullroar||

    It is the responsibility of the Government - not Assange - to protect state secrets. By working with media and asking the government for help with redaction, Assange did much more than anyone has a right to expect.

    The cache of documents as a whole provides an invaluable look at the outer-most inner-workings (trust me, it makes sense) of our government. We see various violations instances of the highest authorities bending -and sometimes breaking- the laws meant to restrain them, as well as various underhanded deals being carried out in the name of John Q. Public.

    By all means, punish those who betray their oath and office to defend the country. Punish those responsible for the leak. But transparency isn't about feeling good, and it's not about saving lives. The same "X puts our troops in danger" argument could be used for nearly anything. What is important is that the troops are fighting for, among other things, an idea - a government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    "The same "X puts our troops in danger" argument could be used for nearly anything"

    What like lifting the prohibition on drugs? No, you moron, there is only a limited number of things that endanger the lives of coalition soldiers, and if their lives have no value to you then, by extension, a limited number of things that endangers your liberty, which libertarians care sooooo much about.

    Giving away the names of informants undermines coalition efforts, it endangers the lives of people who are helping us. I don't know why so many people here are in denial. The "ragheads without internet connections" have admitted on television (Channel 4, UK) that they are scouring the Wikileaks data, have found the names of those people who helped us and will murder them. How does this help further the cause of government transparency? Why does the American public or the world have to know this? HOW?!

    This is what Ayn Rand meant when she accused libertarians of being amoral whim worshipers. People who believe that anything goes.

  • ||

    Well, if it was on TV it must be true! Bwuhahahaha!

    They've "found the names", eh? What names? I still haven't heard any names, only assertions with no facts.

  • ||

    And I can't help but wonder why these supposedly sophisticated "terrorists" would go on TV and warn their supposedly intended victims that they were going to get them. To give them a nice head start, maybe?

    You sound like one of those guys who still insists that Saddam had nukes. Let me guess, they're in Syria now, right? Or maybe Iran, you guys are scraping for a good excuse for a war with them.

  • BWM||

    Is that, honestly, your only complaint? If it is, I'm curious to know what you'd think of the leaks if that particular information had been redacted?

  • ||

    "The same "X puts our troops in danger" argument could be used for nearly anything"

    What like lifting the prohibition on drugs?

    Indeed. Our asinine war on drugs creates enormously lucrative opportunities for AQ in Afghanistan and puts us in direct opposition to the very people we are trying to keep on our side.

    Too easy. Give me a hard one.

  • Nobody saw this coming||

    Yes that's what i said you idiot: lifting the prohibition on drugs WON'T endanger the lives of American soldiers just like a myriad of other things won't, giving away troop movements will.

    And before you point out that those movements were too old to be of any use to people who try to blow them up every day I'm talking to the people here who claim that every action of government must be made public the second it is taken.

  • ||

    Your confusion is contagious, so let me argue the other side, as any good statist tool would:

    Drug trafficking is a well-known source of revenue for terrorists all over the world. Any reduction in the war on drugs will only benefit them, allowing them to raise more money to buy more weapons to kill American soldiers.

    See? Still easy.

  • Ray Pew||

    Still easier. How much money and aid does the US send to nations that are actively hostile to us?

    And didn't the Clinton administration sell nuclear secrets to China? When will he be arrested for threatening "national security"?

  • BWM||

    Or when Clinton, oh, GAVE North Korea their nuclear ability?

  • BWM||

    Uh, no; any reduction in the war on drugs would make it easier for more people to get in on the drug business, spreading out and reducing the profits accordingly.

  • ||

    "Giving away troop movements" perhaps mattered...in World War One. A war like Afghanistan is far too fluid for the term "troop movements" to even have meaning. The people in Afghanistan know exactly where the troops are, wikileaks or no. (Believe it or not, they live there and they're paying attention.)

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    Seems like Mr. Assflange could provide a valuable public service by releasing up-to-date membership rosters of radical feminist groups.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement