Media

The Newspapers That Would Like to See Julian Assange Dead

|

Kill him!

Wall Street Journal

Assange is an enemy of the U.S. […]

If he were exposing Chinese or Russian secrets, he would already have died at the hands of some unknown assailant. As a foreigner (Australian citizen) engaged in hostile acts against the U.S., Mr. Assange is certainly not protected from U.S. reprisal under the laws of war. […]

At a minimum, the Administration should throw the book at those who do the leaking, including the option of the death penalty. […]

[Assange's] mass, indiscriminate exposure of anything labeled secret that he can lay his hands on is a hostile act against a democracy that is fighting a war against forces bent on killing innocents. Surely, the U.S. government can do more to stop him than send a stiff letter.

Utah Standard-Examiner:

We are angered by the continued release of confidential documents that deal with the war on terror. The web site, WikiLeaks, run by an American-hater named Julian Assange, dumped another huge trove of information that puts our allies at risk, threatens diplomatic relations with some of our allies, and endangers many of our fellow citizens.

It is wrong to do this to people who are risking their lives to help our nation in the struggle against terrorism. Frankly, we wouldn't spare a moment of sympathy if a character such as Assange died or was imprisoned as a result of his criminal actions.

New York Post:

[A]cquiescing in such anarchy is…unacceptable. Wherever possible, the full weight of the law must be brought to bear on the leakers—and the young soldier who started the ball rolling needs to be a very old man when he next breathes free air. […]

Rep. Pete King, incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has asked both Clinton and Holder to formally designate WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization.

That may sound radical, but in fact such a designation would prohibit US banks, and companies like PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, from processing payments to the group.

It would also make it a felony to provide WikiLeaks with "material support or resources"—subjecting anyone who does so to potential federal prosecution.

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.

121 responses to “The Newspapers That Would Like to See Julian Assange Dead

  1. My. God.

    Wikileaks is a “terrorist organization”? Really?

    We should apply the death penalty to people who leak State Department emails? Really?

    What a bunch of tuff gai bedwetters and sycophantic apparatchiks. Disgusting.

    1. This shows the caliber of the people who presume to rule us. Everybody else seems to know that emails are simply not private and if you don’t want to be embarrassed you don’t put it in an email. But not these knuckleheads.

      And yet we are supposed to let them run our lives.

      1. It’s not juts the people who presume to rule us. A lot of people at all strata of the military are pissed off.

  2. No, the media isn’t statist and authoritarian. Not at all.

    1. Yeah, this is a much better argument that the media is more statist than liberal. Far more than the xxx-ray scanners.

      Is Elsberg still alive? If he is, then he should be first up (along with any old NYT reporters from that era) to be offed for revealing state secrets.

      Come talk to me after he’s been eliminated via a drone about going after WikiLeaks.

    2. Why yes, the media is statist and authoritarian; which does not make you and your fellow AssHinge-supporting sedition-spewers any less treasonous. We should indeed sentence that faggot traitor Manning, AssHinge himself, and anybody else who does what they’ve done to death by firing squad.

      Whatsamatta, aPauling moRon supporters, too limp-noodled even to support those pansy “Letters of Marque” against America’s foes now? “Waaah!!! Somebody insists on exterminating America’s foes! We ought to try to understand those enemies’ feelings instead!” I would tell all you hypocrites to go suck on it, but you salad-tossing AssHinge-sucking terrorist-lovers already do.

      1. DURR HURR, MAX, HURR DURRRRR!!!!1

      2. Let me guess: another representative for christ, right? Say, don’t you have a war on christmas to go fight?

  3. Yeah, this is more than a little creepy. Watched some Fox News last night – basically, all the hosts/guests said the US should put a hit on Assange.

    Really? I mean, REALLY? WTF??

    Oh, and my other fave was that the leaks “endangered US citizens”. For pointing out that [either Putin or the U] is Batman to [either Medvedev’s or Canada’s] Robin? And that Saudi Arabia want us to do their dirty work?

    Huh….

    1. “Watched some Fox News last night”

      [mythbuster]Well now *there’s* your problem[/mythbuster] 🙂

      1. I did it to get in tune with The Folks?, Quiet.

        And that’s a memo…

    2. If ever there was a place where a group came together and could be taken out in one spot and the world could be a better place…it’s Fox News. I rather like the idea of targeting them instead.

      That’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to call for the assassination of all Fox employees who appear on TV. Propaganda spin masters should not be allowed to live.

      1. Yep, there’s a genius response to their tardedness

      2. And as the smoke clears from the scene of the crime, a pile of charred plastic breast implants is all that remains.

  4. Wow. That’s certainly different than Slashdot where about 80% of the posters would happily fellate Assange. He’s the new superhero amongst the neo-pseudo-sorta-progressive mob of rag tag rebels fighting the Evil Empire of… someone or other.

    Me? I just love the theater of it all, and hope both sides just devour one another.

    1. RM has been in love with Ass-ange and the cretins behind Wikileaks from day one. Nary a bad word about that whole wretched site here. I don’t think there’s anything admirable about publishing the names and addresses of people who’ve helped us in Pakistan (who would have almost certainly been killed if they didn’t flee in time), releasing doctored videos to try and lower the morale of the big bad people of the big bad empire and releasing the names and addresses of thousands of other people for crimes such as “being a member of a political party I don’t like” (the BNP list(s), how most people in the UK first found out about Wikileaks).

      Oh and did I mention he’s already wanted on fucking rape charges??!!! Seriously RM pull your dick out of this arsehole.

      1. Of course, wanted on rape charges. Why do we believe anything he says. Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned from reading this blog, it’s that anyone accused of a crime is guilty for sure.

        And casting aspersions on someone’s credibility based on unrelated criminal proceedings is not a logical fallacy at all.

        1. I wasn’t talking about his reliability; if all this material was libelous there’d be no problem. What I’m saying to you and everyone else here at RM is to stop idolizing this arsehole (who just happens to be a rapist) and stop painting him as some kind of rebel against an imagined big bad.

          Honestly how did leaking information about our allies in the Middle East further the cause of “government transparency”? Did those people deserve to die or live in fear for their lives just because they helped America? Is it moral to poor thousands of private addresses all over the internet just because people don’t like the political allegiance of people living at those addresses?

          Libertarians could seriously do with a lesson in the value of privacy. That’s what separates living in a free state from living in a police state: everything you do is not automatically “leaked” so wiser people can judge you – people in free countries should have a private life.

          1. I thought good Americans believed in innocent till proven guilty? But it sounds like you’ve already Judge Dredded him and demand his corpse… it would be that the state (be that the US or Sweden, all governments fear transparency) is deathly afraid of this man and trying to snuff him? This whole rape thing? You think? Maybe? Just a bit?

            1. Drop this shallow bullshit about “transparency” you’re not fooling me anymore than you’re fooling yourself. Wikileaks is not a constructive leaking of documents that uncover corruption it’s the callous leaking of anything and everything that has secret/private written on it with a not too subtle anti-American agenda behind it.

              Tell me once and for all how outing our allies in the Middle East helps the holy cause of “government transparency”. Tell why it was moral when Wikileaks printed the whole BNP membership list on the internet (I live in the UK and that’s how I first heard about them). Say what you want about this not-too-perfect country but we’re damn well tolerant and respect privacy and the BNP (headed by an ex neo-Nazi) actually won the sympathy vote because people were so disgusted at this act, the praise it received from as far left as the Grauniad and as far right as the Hellograph and their calls for vigilantism against those who joined the wrong party.

              I don’t care much for those whappy BNPers and their strange new traditional socialist economics but people have a right to privacy, the defining characteristic of a free state and a free world I would argue, and Wikileaks is run by malice and has no constructive goal in mind.

              And I don’t want a corpse I want a fair trial and I want you people to finally understand how vicious and destructive Wikileaks really is.

              1. “”Drop this shallow bullshit about “transparency” you’re not fooling me anymore than you’re fooling yourself.””

                Is that all you saw in his post? How about the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

                1. Did you read beyond the first sentence of my comment? No? Well here’s what I said: “I don’t want a corpse I want a fair trial”. Or do you believe this cretin is above the law and should never go on trial?

                  How about answering the Question how outing our allies in the Middle East helps the holy cause of “government transparency”. It seems as though everybody here ignores that despicable act just so they can go on lionizing and wanking over this malicious anti-hero. Seriously, just stop it.

                  Oh and answer my question too.

              2. Dude, the foreign policy itself puts the troops in danger, NOT the revelation of what we happen to be doing in our foreign policy.

                Should the media just have shut their lips on Abu Ghraib? Or the troops that were hunting civilians for sport in Afghanistan? These revelations would be argued under the same exact logic to be both endangering and demoralizing to the troops.

                To totally Godwin the discussion,
                Nazi German media: “Not to worry – all the Jews were just going to nice summer camps in Poland and Austria.”

                German citizen: “Why is it suddenly raining ashes on my house?”

                Nazi media: “According to the government, it’s probably the Jews’ fault. Apparently, they keep burning their copies of ‘Mein Kampf’, as well as your childrens’ futures. Stop asking questions. You’ll demoralize the troops.”

                German citizen: “Uhh..ok…”

          2. everyone else here at RM is to stop idolizing this arsehole

            “Idolizing” ? wtf? Mattwas criticizing people who called for Assange’s assassination. How is that idolatry?

            (who just happens to be a rapist)

            You know for sure he’s a rapist, huh? Then you’d better testify as a witness if the Swedes ever bring that case to court.

            Honestly how did leaking information about our allies in the Middle East further the cause of “government transparency”?

            The US has facilitated a staggering amount of killing and abuse in the last 9 years under a veil of national security secrecy, and you can’t see how information about what our “allies” (sterling folks like the Saudis and Hamid Karzai) are doing, or what we’re doing in their countries, is crucial to transparency? How can we judge a government’s conduct if we don’t know what it’s up to?

            Did those people deserve to die or live in fear for their lives just because they helped America

            For fuck’s sake, what people? What deaths is WikiLeaks responsible for? What are the victims’ names? You’ve lost your shit so completely that you’ve jumped all the way from “this information could cause someone to be hurt” to “ASSANGE HAS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS OMG!!”.

          3. Yeah. And I’m sure it’s merely a coincidence that any movement in the “rape case” has occurred within a day or two of an Wikileaks dump.

            1. Didn’t they bring the original charge within a few weeks of the first big US dump?

      2. Seriously RM pull your dick out of this arsehole.

        No, they don’t have any dicks. You mean tReason Magazine should pull its collective mouth off of his arsehole.

        By the way, here’s a code I’m now adding to my Firefox browser’s copy of AdBlock:

        reason.com##DIV#article_145759

        It causes this retarded article to vanish from the tReason blog like magic.

  5. Might be better to show a list of newspapers who DON’T want Assange killed.

    It will be shorter and give me a better idea of who I’d prefer to do business with.

    1. Not true, actually. The consensus position, give or take, is that Assange is yucky, and the leaks go too far, but that he shouldn’t necessarily be executed.

      1. I think he’s an irresponsible attention whore. I also don’t think he’s violated any laws.

        Prosecute the hell out of Pfc. Manning (I’m sure he’s gonna love the accommodations at Leavenworth) but Assange is sorta doing journalism and revealing government secrets is perhaps the most important part of that job.

        The diplomatic cables will cause some damage to US foreign policy efforts, haven’t taught me anything I didn’t already know.

        Medvedev, Putin’s hand picked successor, is Putin’s lap dog? The Saudi’s and Gulf Sheikdoms would like us to their dirty work? U.S. diplomats disparage leaders of our allies in private? They engage in espionage? Not exactly earth shattering news to a literate adult.

        1. haven’t taught me anything I didn’t already know.

          It taught me about Saudi Arabia wanted us to Bomb Iran. I had no fucking idea.

          It also taught me that the US is not entirely stupid in knowledge of its allies and enemies.

          Also I did not know Karzi in Afghanistan is as corrupt as he is.

          1. Seriously? Do you not pay any attention to anything outside your own bathroom?

            WRT point #2, I know that our knowledge and intel gathering are good. These things are done by some generally good people who tend to want to do a good job. I always figured that it was the leadership that was inept, or naive.

        2. How many of these things revealed by Wikileaks and compiled by Greenwald, did you know?

          (1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

          (2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA’s kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

          (3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA’s torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Will Bunch today about this: “The day Barack Obama Lied to me”);

          (4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War “investigation”;

          (5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

          (6) “American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world” about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post’s own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

          (7) the U.S.’s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal — a coup — but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

          (8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

          (9) Hillary Clinton’s State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

          1. the U.S.’s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal — a coup

            The ambassador was wrong. It was a constitutional impeachment.

            1. It is better described as a constitutional crisis. The Honduran constitution states what the former president (TLTG his name) did (seeking another term) was treason but does not lay out a specific impeachment procedure. The legislature and the Supreme court backed the military’s arrest and deportation of the guy.

          2. I knew or deduced all except #8.

            And I’m not too concerned about that one.

            1. Yeah, but deduced knowledge is different from knowledge supported by direct evidence.

          3. You’re trying to educate a bunch of tards…I admire your bringing forth the FACTS…something they work diligently to ignore, but these people are bloodthirsty little ‘screw the 1st amendment, the 2nd is all that matters’ types. Your wasting your time.

            Viva Assange, defender of TRUTH, exposer of LIES, causing conservatives to WET THEIR COLLECTIVE PANTS.

        3. I learned about German US relations

          A senior U.S. diplomat “pointed out that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.,” according to a classified diplomatic cable dated Feb. 6, 2007.

        4. Prosecute the hell out of Pfc. Manning (I’m sure he’s gonna love the accommodations at Leavenworth) but Assange is sorta doing journalism and revealing government secrets is perhaps the most important part of that job.

          I might buy this if any of the information released revealed law-breaking by public officials, or that there was some public interest being served. (See Pentagon Papers.)

          But none of that appears to be operative here. There’s nothing in these documents besides the typical background noise of diplomacy. No obvious public interest has been served, and possibly the release of some of this information could be quite damaging.

          There’s no “whistle-blowing” involved here, it’s just an exercise in sticking a thumb in the eye of The Man.

          As far as I’m concerned, the whole matter is a tempest in a teapot. On the other hand, Assange is no hero, releasing government secrets just because they’re secrets is not heroic. If some government does manage to off the obnoxious prick, I can’t say that I’ll have much sympathy.

          1. What Assange has accomplished is to make it far easier for government officials to smear whistleblowers leaking important information as simply traitors – or possibly even worse – enabling legislation to legitimize the suppression of information.

      2. “but that he shouldn’t necessarily be executed.”

        Matt – that leaves a little bit too much wiggle room for me to give them a pass.

        1. Oh, I’m not giving them a pass. Just trying to characterize.

      3. Just tortured?

        1. Would giving him a swirly on GPs, regardless of his WikiLeak attention whoring count?

      4. So is this ammo for or against the “statist bias” theory?

  6. What the fuck? I mean, really? Publishing classified information (but not leaking it in the first place) is protected speech, right? So we’re going to execute the staffs of most newspapers?

    1. Exactly. Every news outlet I can think of is running this. So because Assange got the info from Manning we should assassinate Assange, but because NPR got the info from Assange everything is just hunky-dory. Maybe the nitwits advocating assassination should assassinate the NPR or CNN reporters as well ?

      It’s just bizarre.

  7. The WSJ does have a point. If Assange had leaked embarrassing documents about China, he would already have been taken out by Tom Friedman. (Tom would make it look like Julian was accidently hit by a solar powered train.)

    1. Friedman’s columns are embarrassing documents about China. He probably wouldn’t want the competition.

    2. “The WSJ does have a point. If Assange had leaked embarrassing documents about China, he would already have been taken out by Tom Friedman. (Tom would make it look like Julian was accidentally hit by a solar powered train.)”

  8. If he were exposing Chinese or Russian secrets, he would already have died at the hands of some unknown assailant.

    Plainly, we should be more like them.

    The fewer freedoms we have, the less people will hate us. Yay!

    1. If only…

  9. If you want the correct take on this you need to watch the Judge on Freedom Watch. That show kicks ass. And not just because Reason types get airtime.I am disappointed by the rest of the conservatives that apparently trust their government, no questions asked.

    1. Do you have a summary of the Judge’s take?

      1. Basically, it’s that government can’t be trusted and we’re lucky to have people like Assange around to prove it to us.

  10. It is nice that a right wing media has risen up…it only sucks they need to be just as statist as the left wing media.

  11. If it’s such a big deal that Assange is not a US citizen, and that makes it OK to assassinate him for doing stuff that Daniel Ellsberg was celebrated for, then fuck it, just send me the fucking leaks and I’ll post them instead.

    WikiFluff.

    1. just send me the fucking leaks and I’ll post them instead.

      I say give them to John. (i think he is a US citizen…or at least Mexican which is close enough)

      10$ says despite his rhetoric he would release them in a week of receipt…if only because they would damage Obama and Hilary.

      1. He mentioned being English yesterday, but likely meant speaks English though that wasn’t obvious in the context of the post he wrote.

    2. FluffyLeaks?

      Or does that sound too much like a brand name of rabbit diapers?

      1. I thought it was settled that fluffy was a furry badger not a fuzzy bunny…

        1. He could be a horrific amalgam of both.

          1. Taking the most deadly parts of each to create the perfect predator of both testicles and root vegetable alike.

          2. Bunnies and badgers mating? Didn’t Rick Santorum warn us about something very much like this?

            1. Repeal DADT, and that’s what you’ll get. Bunny-badgers — bungers maybe, I guess.

            2. Badgers? Badgers? We don’t need no steeenking badgers!!

            3. Hahaha – he said “santorum.”

              “President Santorum” has a great ring doesn’t it? It would give us at least one thing to laugh about for four years.

  12. New York Post and the WSJ…

    So this is Murdok or how ever you spell his name.

    What is Fox news saying?

    1. Take a guess…

    2. I think it’s “Mur-Dok.” From the Cro-Magnon. I dunno, ask John he’s fluent in that language.

      1. Don’t you dare patronize me you fear mongering left wing boot lick of the state!!!

        http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..mation.gif

    3. I don’t know, but this internecine warfare within the ranks of the Australian illuminati is entertaining. Hopefully Assange is about to drop some damning information on Murdoch.

      1. Murdoch is ours now, so that means it a Battle Royale between the Aussie branch of the Illuminati and the American branch of the Freemasons. I always bet on the stonecutters in these cases.

  13. I have to say, if i saw Julian locked in a hot car on a summer day, and I saw an ugly terrier in the next car, I’d help the terrier.

    1. Just because he’s not going to fuck you?

      Wait….wrong Julian.

  14. Sarah Palin writes a newspaper now?

  15. If you choose to engage in underhanded activity, *you* are putting yourself in danger. It is a little ridiculous to blame those that out you. This includes espionage.

    U.S. State Department, “STOP SNITCHING!”

    1. Snitches get stitches.

    2. Assange didn’t commit espionage against the US. He never even set foot in the US as far as we know.

    3. No kidding.

      Covert actors attempt to keep things a secret. This inherently assumes that they CAN be exposed.

  16. “At a minimum, the Administration should throw the book at those who do the leaking, including the option of the death penalty.”

    I dunno about the death penalty, but I’d like to see a few books thrown at government officials who plot to get us involved in military actions in Yemen and try to keep it secret from the voting public…

  17. “”Wherever possible, the full weight of the law must be brought to bear on the leakers “”

    Fine, but Wikileaks isn’t the leaker, it’s the media outlet that the leaker used. Everyone in the Whitehouse knows that game.

  18. Wall Street Journal:
    If he were exposing Chinese or Russian secrets he would already have died at the hands of some unknown assailant.

    It’s sad that a 1 minute google search can disprove the Wall Street Journal

    1. Yeah, it’s like all the critics willfully ignore how much bad stuff Wikileaks has exposed about other countries because it would hurt their case for why he should be assassinated.

  19. Scratch a neocon, find an Ayotollah.

    The Satanic Verses was more threatening to Islam than Wikileaks is to US national security, so if anything Khomeini’s fatwa was more justified.

  20. What alot of people seem to be missing is that if you outlaw this activity (how, btw?), it’s not just the US that you’re protecting. You’re protecting every two-bit dictator on the face of the planet. In this country, somebody like Manning could give the info to the NYT himself, and end up with basically the same outcome, assuming they would even show any interest in publishing it. If you live under a more oppressive regime, however, it’s highly unlikely that you have any such option.

    Wikileaks et al (they are not the only ones, and there will be more) represent an invaluable clearinghouse for sources whose anonymity is, for them, an absolute matter of life and death. So ask yourself: do you want to have the ability to hear what they have to say, or not? By accusing Wikileaks of information theft or whatever, and calling for it to be outlawed, what you are really saying is that you don’t; that you prefer dissidents accept the highest possible level of personal danger as prerequisite to making their stories known to the world.

    In the end, it doesn’t matter anyway — nobody can stop this from happening.

    1. Apparently, the Pentagon Papers case didn’t settle this in the minds of Americans. It would be sad to see it revisited.

  21. “”What alot of people seem to be missing is that if you outlaw this activity (how, btw?), “”

    No kidding on the how. What laws can we pass in the US that would apply to foreigers on foreign soil?

    It’s funny how some think US law doesn’t apply to such when it favors the foreigner, but it does when it prosecutes the foreigner.

    1. If in doubt, accuse of a sex crime and send INTERPOL… oh wait… too late

      1. I giggled.

    2. Ask Noriega.

      1. At his trial, Noriega intended to defend himself by presenting his alleged crimes within the framework of his work for the US Central Intelligence Agency. The government objected to any disclosure of the purposes for which the United States had paid Noriega because this information was classified and its disclosure went against the interests of the United States.

    3. Not that I’m not enjoying the drama tremendously. It’s like a Bond film come to life or something, but with Keanu Reeves playing Egon Spengler in the role of Blofeld.

  22. Yeah, that would be a great fucking standard for the U.S. to live up to.

    So that’s what “national greatness” is now? Imitating the fucking commies?

    1. Read more David Brooks. That’s what it always was, to him.

  23. Has anyone actually said HOW these leaks could endanger national security? I keep hearing every media outlet and every politician who gets their face in front of the camera say that. Haven’t heard a single one say how.

    1. Because it’s revealing troop locations! The bastard wants our brave boys dead. Oh wait, no, that was an email from 2002. Never mind.

    1. Is that a “if you kill me, this letter will be mailed to every newspaper” type thing?

      If so… Bravo, Mr. Assange, Bravo

      1. Sort of. In that scenario, there still exist two major points of potential failure: of the postal service, to deliver, and of the newspaper, to publish. Here, the letters have already gone out, and not to newspapers, but to anyone in the world who cares to obtain them. All that remains is to let the method by which they may be unsealed become known. This sets up a really interesting set of dynamics.

        On the one hand, if you assassinate him, you run the risk that the file contains alot of really bad stuff, and you now have to deal both with that, and the fact that you just assassinated the guy. You might think that the second part will not be an issue, but in fact, you cannot discount the possibility here that what it contains might very well invalidate the very pretenses on which you built the case for assassination. Furthermore, while you might be hoping that some other nation offs him first, thereby relieving you of the need to make the choice, you still have no guarantee that the file, which is now public, contains nothing extraordinarily damning to your position.

        On the other hand, if somebody doesn’t take him out, people are going to start wondering just what it is that you’re afraid of. What information could possibly be so powerful as to allow one man hold several governments in check? You can’t have people thinking that way.

        So, I tend to think he’ll be neutralized (and anything but assassination implies a whole host of other eventualities) one way or the other. From the standpoint of any given nation, it is better if it is another nation who actually does it. Afterward, nobody knows what it is that will need to be spun, but dealing with that unknown is easily more desirable than the alternative.

        1. On the other hand, if the threat is good, then it means that to protect themselves, Wikileaks has to keep a lid on the most damning allegations to ensure that they’re free to publish moderately damning ones.

        2. The bigger question is, if he has an “insurance” file and he gets murdered by the world mafia, who’d going to unlock the file? He may have an accomplice, and Assange gets arrested, I imagine the leaks will keep coming.

  24. I canceled my WSJ and I have refused to read all but Krugnuts (for comic relief and to crush friends savior like view of him in economic discussions) in NYT. I don’t read any daily print at this point. I still read the economist, but that mag is starting to piss me off.

    1. could you record those conversations and post them for our voyeurism?

  25. How many of these things revealed by Wikileaks and compiled by Greenwald, did you know?

    How much did I know, specifically? not all.

    Does any of it surprise me? Not in the least.

    1. That’s not fair. You read stuff and comprehend it. You can’t expect the average citizen to have those abilities.

  26. You know who’s responsible for the Espionage Act? That’s right, history’s greatest monster, Woodrow Wilson.

  27. It’s weird when newspapers are more hawkish than the Secretary of Defense on the issue.

  28. Assange looks like a slightly more smug Bill Maher. Either eliminate him or give him his own unwatchable HBO show.

    1. Assange Spitzer on CNN?

      1. I would rather watch the show that Spitzer’s hooker and Assange’s “rape” victim hosts.

  29. Oh and did I mention he’s already wanted on fucking rape charges??!!! Seriously RM pull your dick out of this arsehole.

    Yes, because anyone accused of rape or sexual harassment is surely guilty. No one would ever make a false accusation of sexual misconduct.

  30. On the other hand, Assange is no hero, releasing government secrets just because they’re secrets is not heroic.

    I’d saying risking your freedom and possibly your life and having to live on the run, in order to disabuse citizens of the benevolence and veracity of government, counts as heroic in my book.

    1. Only if you smoke pot and write crappy music.

  31. This really goes to show that 90% of our media is controlled by the evil Federal Reserve:

    http://www.thenorthwestreport……tionary-2/

  32. Honestly, as much as Obama sucks some serious fucking balls, the Republicans have constantly struck me as more authoritarian over the past two years. They get going on a great economic tirade, then suddenly they fuck it all up with the sort of jingoist State fellation that would make Vladmir Putin proud.

    Hey look, we’re the party of family values and to prove it, we’re going to go fuck over a lot of Latino families because we can’t stand the fact that they don’t speak English and couldn’t be bothered to fill out our easy breezy immigration paperwork. Also, let’s assassinate the guy that dared to pants the American government, which is obviously only bad when we want to score cheap political points. We won’t let you build a mosque because terrorists are Muslims, but by God, don’t you dare call the season with multiple holidays a “holiday season.”

    Rush Limbaugh was talking last week about how the liberal teachers have “brainwashed” kids into thinking white settlers murdered a lot of Native Americans, and then helpfully pointed out that by introducing the white man to tobacco, the Native Americans really killed more white people.

    I’m just glad to be constantly reminded in the age of goodwill between libertarians and Republicans how much I fucking loathe Republicans.

    1. Jesus this is a stupid fucking post Hobo.

      An illegal immigrant is just that, illegal. While I like the idea of open borders, it is not realistic simply because other countries are not governed in the same manner as America. We can’t have fully open borders and have half the world’s population show up here, because there just isn’t enough space or resources. Open borders are an idealistic dream, and one that is could only be achieved when the rest of the world has the same freedoms that Americans enjoy. So as far as fucking over Latino families, it has nothing to do with being Latino, you race-baiting fuck.

      As far as the mosque, please show me where republicans attempted any LEGISLATION to stop the mosque. They didn’t. Some came out and said that it was insensitive, and that out of respect for the fallen it would be better if the mosque was a bit further away. Big fucking deal. There is a huge difference to being opposed to something, and wanting something stopped by LAW you fucking moron.

      There are things the republicans fuck up on, a lot of things, but Christ you picked the wrong ones to bitch about.

  33. Fuck the First Amendment, bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts!

  34. ks, run by an American-hater named Julian Assange, dumped another huge trov

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.