I’ve got to admit that I’m liking the reports I’m reading of what’s being released by Wikileaks.
He’s got a point, but the soldier that stole the information should be tried and executed.
Asswang should just “disappear”.
An Australian can commit treason against Australia. I am unsure if an Australian can even commit treason against America. It sure doesn't fit the dictionary definition.
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
He’s right about one thing: you can’t try an Australian for treason in America... maybe in Australia.
We are at war, assclown! Cripes, every time I think Ron Paul makes some sense, he says something so mind-numbingly stupid.
I even wonder if all this is to keep Hillary from running in 2012.
When Bush allowed Sandy Burglar to get away with stolen documents, I got a lot more upset. This is libertarian posturing, which is not to be taken too seriously. Libertarians are often effete.
I belive they should go after the new papers also!
Whether the leaked info contains beneficial or malicious material is irrelavent. It is classified material that should never see the light of day.
Assange needs to be punished for espionage, and with the normal punishment for espionage.
This is media, isn’t it? I mean, why don’t we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?
Got to love this statement.
There’s nothing coming out of these *leaks* that seems anywhere near being treasonous. Although some would like you to think so.
Treason for manning, Espionage for Asswipe, and one more rope for RON PAUL just for being an EFFING KOOK!
Huck is an idiot. One cannot commit treason except against your own country. For instance, it is impossible for me to commit treason against Canada.
Espionage, absolutely. AS I understand this crime carries a potential death penalty, that’s good enough for me.
I see no reason why Wikileaks should not be considered a member of the press or why it should be any more subject to prosecution than the NYT or other media that publish this stuff. I am very uncomfortable with somebody deciding who is and is not a journalist.
He’s not being investigated for treason ... he’s being investigated for espionage.
The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United StatesVietnam Relations, 19451967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, was a top-secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.
The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of the New York Times in 1971. A 1996 article in the New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance.
Justice Black is often regarded as a leading defender of First Amendment rights such as the freedom of speech and of the press. He refused to accept the doctrine that the freedom of speech could be curtailed on national security grounds. Thus, in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), he voted to allow newspapers to publish the Pentagon Papers despite the Nixon Administrations contention that publication would have security implications. In his concurring opinion, Black stated,
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Governments power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. [
] The word security is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971)
The old crank ought to have first had a conversation with Ann Coulter before he shot off his mouth, but typically he’s stuck in attention whore mode.
I hope he’s ignored by Fox News Channel. I hope, I hope, I hope.
The NY Times and Washington Post have done far more in revealing state secrets. He has a point.
Only yesterday Ron Paul stood up for Charlie Rangel.
Keeping his reputation for nutjob-iness intact.
--FR's once vocal but dwindling core of RonPaulBots
Assange is not a citizen of the United States of America.
Therefore he has no standing under our laws, either to be protected or to be prosecuted.
This is a sideshow.
We should really be going after the leakers and the lax security in our military and diplomatic corps.