'If Wikileaks was actually exposing corruption, then I'd support it, but its not.' - really? are you saying there is no corruption revealed by those leaks? or that since no-one will be charged for them it isn't useful?

@orathaic

I don't think anyone on this thread has argued that it is appropriate to assassinate Assange. In fact, despite what I think of him, I think it's really poor form of Australia to abandon one of their citizens like they have.

I did misinterpret you. Sorry Thucy, it was a knee jerk reaction. It certainly wasn't intentional. My apologies. That said, I don't like the idea of leaving it to a single person to decide what is and is not in the "public interest". That's too much power in a single person's hands.

@Mafia-gator, which single person has this power? isn't it the case that hundreds of thousands have/had access to lots of info, and (at least) one broke hte law by releasing these documents.

I think it is admirable that Assange has protected his source, but i think the reaction in the media is complete insanity. And that these are elected officials is a disgrace.

Nobody elected Assange. He stands on his own.

I'm not saying any one person has that power. But the idea that we should limit what gets leaked but expecting the posts on Wikileaks to be edited so as to further the national interest COULD result in that kind of power being concentrated in a single person's hands? Also, what happened to the -lli-.

@goldfinger: I'm almost speechless on your guilt by association logic. Almost. Thankfully, it turns out you're wrong. The police can't shut down your business, cancel your credit cards, and hold you indefinitely in jail because your friend had some heroin on them. If you try to make an ad hominem argument like that in a court of law, the high school janitor sitting on the jury will laugh you out the front door. Now I want you to pay close attention to this next part: those diplomatic cables were vetted with the help of five of the most respected newspapers in the western world and the info was published in those same newspapers. There were no consequences for those newspapers. Got it now Captain 99th percentile on the PSATs?
@Thucy: OK, so you think the diplomatic cables are going overboard. Of course that was precisely the info that was vetted by five of the ... nevermind. You are jealous, I can smell it. "sociopath, narcissist, dick, vain, misogynistic, messiah, self-absorbed, pursuing a vendetta..." Oh he definitely has your full attention. I can see why, too, he fucks Swedish chicks without a condom. Also, I've had the opportunity to compare some of your writing to some of his and he wins. Not even a competition, really. He's probably got more than that over you, but I don't know you well enough to comment on the other stuff. "Because I'm more concerned with doing the right thing than obeying the law." Classic. :)
@Ora: you may agree or disagree with the MO of Anonymous, but the fact is that the US Gov made DDoS attacks on Wikileaks without any justification and no-one said a word about illegality or spoilt nerd children.

Well yes, i will admit it is more of an inditment of the US that they are on the same level as Anonymous. In fact i think i compared some US senators to Islamic extremists who call for the execution of blasphemers... this whole thing makes the US look, once more, like a horrible example of democracy...

should get nobel peace prize instead of that chinesse villian

I believe that Assange is doing what he believes in. He may not be a hero, but I think that quality is at least admirable. Mostly though, I'm surprised at the actions taken by governments against him. I think they reflect extremely poorly on western governments, and simply expose the hypocrisy in their democratic vision. If there is any embarrassment to be had on the part of western governments, they brought it upon them selves with the way they dealt with this issue.

On a more practical note, I think Assange's Box has been opened, and there's no closing it. Even if he were assassinated, martyred, or successfully convicted of rape (even convincingly so), it wouldn't stop wikileaks. You could shut down wikileaks, but I bet three new leak sites would spring up to replace it. The technology and know-how is widely available and there are plenty of people who will take up the cause.

alamothe, what do you have against Liu Xiaobo?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/liu-xiaobo-wrong-man-for-nobel-peace-prize-say-laureates/story-e6frg6so-1225969772275

@orathaic - The US is not a democracy. We are a republic or, at best, a representative democracy. But we are not now and never have been a true democracy.

And Assange was fine until he leaked the locations of secret military installations. Sure, some were prisons and should have been leaked, but not everything he leaked involved potential human right's violations. There is such a thing as responsible reporting and he has not demonstrated responsibility in what he has reported through wikileaks.

Once again, americans are exposed as pussy blowjob artists.

ALLAHU AKBAR!!!

Wow. Did the Chinese politburo send that to The Australian to print? what we should read from that article is how truly gargantuan China's efforts to silence praise for Liu Xiaobo and the pro-democracy movement in general, not how he's some "villain" leading an illegitimate movement.

Oh and mapleleaf, what's a pussy blowjob?

"The US is not a democracy. We are a republic or, at best, a representative democracy. But we are not now and never have been a true democracy."

Draug, stop being an ass, a republic could roughly be defined as having a constitution - that is any country/state which derives it's existance and powers from a written document - as oposed to a kingdom, which derives it's existance and powers from the 'divine right of kings'... So saying the US is a republic is basically amounting to saying very fucking little.

Compare with the Soviet Socialist Republics, they probably had a very different constitution, yet still qualify as republics Or the Islamic Republic or Iran.... Contrast with Theocracy as a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil rule...

I did NOT state that the US was a direct democracy, nor did i specify representative democracy, which you clearly have some issue with. I merely used the umbrella term democracy, which could be one of many types...

You're just taking my words apart because you don't like their content. Well i'm very glad to see you accept criticism of your own country, because i can promise you, simply ingoring the failings of your country will not make them go away. (and unlike in medicine - where the body likes to heal itself, so most things go away if you don't kill the patient - Human organisations tend to get worse before they get better. You tend to require a revolution to end some power accumulations/social structures.)

Re: the Australian government;

I've heard it said that it is a benign dictatorship of two parties -

perhaps this would explain the knee jerk reactions concerning Assange from the politicians over here in oz?

Perhaps Australian politicians are afraid of being victimized by the Identity Theft tactics the State Department is apparently (planning on?) utilizing, if the leaked cables are any indication.

Assange may have some personality flaws. So do I. So, I expect, does everyone posting in this forum. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't let Julian Assange anywhere near her. But Wikileaks is doing a great public service - he is exposing the myriad evils done in my name and with my tax dollars, making them plain for all to see. For once we can have educated discussions based on the truth of what our government does, and not arguments based on reports from 'embedded journalists' and talking points from public relations spokes-hacks who have no real knowledge of what's going on beyond the BS they're fed from the Powers That Be. For all of this I am extremely grateful.

And I have a question for all you wikileaks-haters. Can any of you explain the national security justification for keeping Dyncorp's practice of supplying child rape victims to Afghan police-pedophiles from the American people who are footing the bill?

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

It's a bullshit accusation

regarding the reaction in Australia: http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/party-revolt-at-pms-wiki-stance/story-fn79cf6x-1225970594165

Neither hero or villain.

Something in between. Ain't a black-and-white issue. In some ways I approve of wikileaks, in others I don't.

Alamothe, I know the rape accusation is BS, but the evidence 'supporting' it does suggest that the man is a bit of a cad.

I don't care about a politician's or journalist's sex life. None of my business. Unless there's a crime, which from what I heard simply isn't the case here.

The issue is whether wikileaks' practices are kosher or not.

@lalmothe - the address liberalconspiracy.org says tons in itself. Are we really supposed to believe a website with that URL doesn't have an agenda?

Can you show me a website that has no bias whatsoever, and reports the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on every issue? All human beings have biases, and it is impossible to separate these biases from our work product. cnn.com and foxnews.com are every bit as suspect in my mind as 'liberalconspiracy.org' - the difference is one set is honest about their bias, and the other is not.

On that I absolutely agree, Tolstoy. That's why I read from both liberal and conservative wensites/newspapers or watch both sets of TV and draw my own conclussions, nit just take in and swallow whole whatever shit is thrown my way.

Cracks in the US wall around Assange...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/12/wikileakss_assange_gains_influ.html

"the responsibility for these disclosures lies firmly with the institution empowered to keep them secret: the Executive branch" -Jack L. Goldsmith

As i said previously. It is the responcibility of the US governement to look after itself. The 'leaker' could have emailed everything from a random hotmail account in an internet cafe, directly to the newspapers, and we'd still be in the same situation, just without Assange being in the news for several weeks...