I like Glenn Greenwald. He is correct in calling out the hypocrisy in how wikileaks is being viewed and discussed in the media. What's even more hilarious (and troubling) is the fact that CNN would have Bush's former terrorist advisor calling Assange a terrorist after everything the regime that she served committed. You can't necessarily call CNN a 'liberal' outlet when they're bringing these people on. I think it's safe to say the Neo-cons and their journalists/reports have infiltrated our media outlets after watching that discussion.
Yeah, because obviously, killing Assange means the end of Wikileaks. The gigabytes of classified information floating on the internets would simply dissipate into thin air shortly afterwards.
so he wouldn't really be profitting from the book would he? no wife, no kids. you make a great deal of sense there.
oops, he has an ex-wife who has custody of his child. but still, if he dies he doesn't "profit" from the book at all.
Except you seem to have missed posts where I have stated I am still keeping an open mind regarding the impact of wikileaks. I have just started taking a look at the links and I am interested in learning more. At the moment I will applaud them for seeking to work with the US government and it seems irresponsible on the part of the government not to work with them but at the same time I don't think that excuses wikileaks responsibility and from what other things I have seen they have been sloppy in regard to their own redactions.
wikileaks is a volunteer organization, it doesn't have the resources of a major media outlet. Perhaps one reason why the response from the MSM has been so alarmist and shrill is because they're used to being the only major players in the news industry. Wikileaks' original stated goal is to release source documents and have a wiki-style commentary from readers on each document. That kind of bottom-up organization could be seen as a threat on the dominance of the MSM at a time when investigative journalism and the news industry is on a serious decline.
That Wikileaks did their own censoring is irrelevant from a legal (or moral) standpoint. They don't get to decide what national security information gets released.
So basically you're saying that no classified documents can ever be legally published as long as the government refuses to dictate what gets redacted? That's sheer lunacy. "Freedom of speech - except when a government official doesn't like it." It's this kind of tyranny that our country was founded in opposition to.
Oh please. Loose lips sink ships. You don't give away security info to our enemies. You think the founders believed in that? You can appeal under the Freedom Of Information Act to have documents published, and the government must justify the secrecy.
ha ha ha http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38350993/ The scary thing is that if the AP didn't investigate (which would have required someone to leak sensitive info to the AP), this ridiculous practice would have gone on indefinitely. Your blind faith in the government is astounding. It's supposed to be government by the people, FOR the people not by career politicians for national security. Don't get me wrong, national security is important. However, wikileaks' documents are all designated secret or below. Simply put, dissemination of that material would not produce great harm to national security. Face it, we as Americans have egg on our face because of the choices our leaders face. We can't pawn this off as someone else's responsibility. Sure, everyone does this kind of thing. However, it's no wonder our foreign relations are suffering when we speak from a bully pulpit, yet are incredibly hypocritical in our actions.
America has been binging so long on lies, corruption, and secrecy that anyone who shines a light on those activities is branded a villain.
A private citizen can print any information he wants. Wikileaks actually does not have to censor anything. If you are in a government or military position and release sensitive information then it can be a crime. That is why Scooter Libby got into trouble and Robert Novak did not in the Varerie Plame case.
"I like how you think! I know US unemployment pretty bad. Maybe you will work for grass clippings and kim chi rations?"
Brutal. At least they won't invite him with those light weights. Probably no more CNN for Glen Greenwald. I especially like the Townsend woman ignorantly talking about how it is all a crime without mentioning a statute that was violated. The Obama Administration seems to be working hard to create some sort of crime to charge him with. Assange will be the new Che Guevara on t-shirts. Book it.
Greenwald makes a fool of the NYT. This is becoming a habit of his. Good read. Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics
