Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1i...layer_embedded


---------------------------------------------
WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.


The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.


Questions to consider:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?\

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

"Ron Paul, that leftist liberal." - Coadie

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I knew I liked him. :)

:thumbsup

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

There's a short list of people who always stand for right in Washington... but Ron Paul tops the list.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Ron Paul - i have always liked him even if i disagree at times.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Point # 2 is the one I immediately thought of when I heard this. It makes me wonder if it was intentionally made available by the Feds

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

"Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information."

I usually agree with much of what Ron Paul says, however Wikileaks has actually confirmed the fact that the Iraqi government was actively engaged in pursuing weapons of mass destruction and had some in their possession.
Look for an article by Larry Elder entitled "The Wikileaks vindication of George Bush" to learn more.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Great article, aegsm. Here's a pertinent quote from the article:

"Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman -- a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution -- researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk.""

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I put the Obama Birth Certificate people and those who still insist on WMD's in Iraq on the same level.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Ridiculous comparison.

What do you make of this quote?

"...But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I'd need to see more than just this (Oct 23?) excerpt from a Wikileaks source.

The intelligence community (post-war), men whose entire decisions were staked on that intelligence (multiple national leaders) and foreign relations expert are quite unanimous that Iraq posed no WMD threat. If artifacts were found, I'm sure that's just what they were. If a small amount of chemical weapons were found, I'm sure that's just what it was. Sadaam's torture chambers were no secret.

Karl Rove, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Hans Blixer, Tony Blair, Gen. Petraeus, Sec. Gates, Apakan, ... I could go on... all men who have concluded the WMD threat was not real (though Saddam bluffed).

Again, it's just petty speculation, anything to the contrary. We may as well say we know who shot JFK.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Surely you see how this is relevant, though, to disproving the point that Bush LIED to start a war, as opposed to being fed leading and sometimes erroneous intelligence?

I'm not stating that there were WMD's in Iraq; I'm saying the Wikileaks documents could speak to former President Bush's integrity. (And per the linked article, "vindication.")

It's one thing for a president to lie about intelligence because he wants an excuse to go to war; it's quite another for him to make a decision based on current intelligence, only to find out later that the intelligence was faulty. That doesn't put the blame on his shoulders; it puts it onto the shoulders of the intelligence community - a community in which Joe Wilson had a vested interest in protecting.

Whether you find it petty or not, I find it interesting. :D I also find it interesting to observe which groups are more concerned with suppressing the info from Wikileaks, and those who want it shared. It's not always who you might think.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

MB, I don't believe Bush lied.

I believe he was misinformed, and that there was a rush to judgment.

Are you implying that Wikileaks is applauded by Republicans while it has Dems frightened?

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

In other words, your mind is closed on those topics.
Nice!

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I would agree with you assessment there!

I think people are torn on what to think of Wikileaks.
I tend to err on the side of freedom.
However, I will really applaud when Wikileaks publishes leaks from Russia.
If they do, though, they better hunt a place to hide.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I get the feeling those behind these leaks only care about America being harmed.
Amen to running and hiding from Russia, but I don't think there is such a place.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Freedom of Information Act

Not sure of all the legal technicalities. Not sure about the motives of Wikileaks (if they hate America, etc). One thing is for certain, an outlet like that could really keep all nations on their heels.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Yes.

My mind is accessible by facts and credible information at all times though :)

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

What happened falls under the Freedom of Information Act?

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Not necessarily.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

If they were able to access all those documents, why all the espionage type tactics?
I don't think just anyone can get ahold of classified documents under that act.

I understand that Assange does not like America and he's had a goal of taking this country down. Maybe there's a little hype in that, but he didn't do it because he was bored.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I wouldn't imply that because it's simply not the case. There are a lot of Republicans furious about Wikileaks. I'm not thoroughly happy about all the information that has been released, but it is still a nice reminder to our leaders that they aren't unaccountable, and they haven't been given carte blanche to do as they please behind closed doors (and in classified communications).

More to the point: I don't believe Assange should be prosecuted.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Oh! I read what you were saying backwards. My apologies :santathumb

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I think the biggest embarrassment is how a PFC get access to those documents. Their security wasn't very secure.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

The birth certificate and college records are secure. (for 1 or 2 people) The rest, not so much.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

What has he done that makes us think he hates America?

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Seriously?

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

It does make you wonder if this information was intentionally allowed to be leaked.

It also makes me wonder has any information like this been leaked under another president?

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Coadie?

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I was very serious.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I read it somewhere, I know that's vauge and probably shouldn't even be brought up. However, his actions aren't exactly America friendly either.

When and if he exposes China, Russia, Pakistan and the like, then maybe I'll re-think how his actions towards America could mean anything else.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Well that is easy for you to look up. I am surprised you have not done so yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informa...d_by_WikiLeaks

Wikileaks has released information on numerous countries. They can only release what they receive. If they receive information on the US, that is what they release. If they receive on Australia, that is what the release. If they receive information on Iran, that is what they release.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I see...no fault of their own they haven't recieved any info on Russia, China, Iran and so on...but somehow they managed to get Sarah Palin's yahoo email account....yeah, that was real important.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Well, yeah.

They don't go out and get this stuff. They rely on people to "leak" them information. Thus, the name Wikileaks.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I see, they wait for someone else to do their dirty work....nice.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I think the term here would be "whistle blower" (in some cases).

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I'm not so sure that "whistle blower" is right. Governments have secrets for a reason. When I go into a negotiation I wouldn't want the other side knowing the conversations I have had between me and my client. The things we say in that context are intended to be private and exposing them is not being a whistle blower.

Exposing classified documents is a crime. A whistle blower actually has protection under the law.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

The supreme Court ruling on abortion pertained to rights to privacy.
There should be information out there that is private and protected.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

I said in some cases, in particular where WikiLeaks has exposed scandal and corruption, not state secrets.

Re: Heroic Stance by Ron Paul on Wikileaks
 

Exactly...

I think a whistle blower would be someone that exposes some federal agency or agent that is breaking our own laws against the American public.

What one person says in private about the leader of another nation is not a violation of a law