Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Internet & Networking It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet - and they're learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks' account suspension. Update II: Visa.com is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Thread beginning with comment 452840
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Guilty of treason
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:26 UTC in reply to "Guilty of treason"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Julian Assange should get on his knees and thank God he's in the UK. If one person dies from the compromised security of any leaked document he is guilty of treason and the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment. These people who scream about freedom of information are immature morons who don't understand what information can cost. With information in the wrong hands people can lose lives. I have friends who have spent time on the front lines. People who say its okay to give compromising information and endanger them I have serious problems with. The fact that osnews supports this action begs me to abandon this site, which I expected to be agnostic to this type of nonsense.


I think you need to read the definition of treason.

Definitions of treason on the Web: a crime that undermines the offender's government

Another definition: In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. ...

Julian Assange is not a US citizen. Julian Assange therefore cannot commit treason against the US.

To further understand how wrong you are, you need to understand a little about Julian Assange's actual nationality.

Read up on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign

This military disaster is often considered to mark the birth of national consciousness in Australia. The campaign was ordered by the British and completely bungled by them, and it cost the lives of thousands.

Now try to understand this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe...
IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.


The disastrous Gallipoli campaign was terminated due to information about it being reported in the press, despite the attempts of the British government to suppress the information. This is the very event that many people refer to as the birth of the consciousness of the Australian nation. It is hugely powerful, a rough equivalent would perhaps be the American war of independence.

Before Gallipoli the citizens of Australia were confident of the superiority of the British Empire and were proud and eager to offer their service. Gallipoli shook that confidence, and the next three years on the Western Front would damage it further. The ANZACs are revered as heroes, and the popular phrase 'digger' used to describe soldiers at Gallipoli has come to describe all members of the Australian armed forces, particularly members of the Army. Popular Australian history asserts that while the Federation of Australia was born in 1901, the country's true psychological independence was only achieved at Gallipoli.


Furthermore, it is all about saving the lives of thousands of Australians (had the campaign continued as the British government wanted) all through the act of disobedience to the government and the publication of information about what they were doing.

Another couple of quotes from the same article are relevant here:
Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.


Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.


Edited 2010-12-08 22:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Guilty of treason
by Noremacam on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:35 in reply to "RE: Guilty of treason"
Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

Are you actually reading what I wrote? I wrote that he was in the UK. I never ever ever said he was a us citizen. Why can't you make that an honest assumption based on what I wrote? You even quoted it.

Secondly I wrote if someone dies as a result of it. An honest reading of what I wrote would've acknowledged it.

You disagreeing with wars is all fine and good; I'm not pro war myself. But I have friends who have been on the front lines. Exposing documents that can compromise their security really is distasteful to me. And visa and the rest of those companies are taking the moral high ground.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Guilty of treason
by TheGZeus on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Guilty of treason"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Exposing documents that can compromise their security really is distasteful to me.

I think their security by putting them on the front lines without need is more distasteful, personally.

That can't even happen in this case.
I didn't see a single document that reported a location in the US or military target on the front lines in the contested documents.
It's all commercial interests and companies _outside_ the USA.

All this really exposed is that the US isn't able to even care for itself, let alone defend itself.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Guilty of treason
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Dec 2010 22:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Guilty of treason"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Are you actually reading what I wrote? I wrote that he was in the UK. I never ever ever said he was a us citizen. Why can't you make that an honest assumption based on what I wrote? You even quoted it. Secondly I wrote if someone dies as a result of it. An honest reading of what I wrote would've acknowledged it. You disagreeing with wars is all fine and good; I'm not pro war myself. But I have friends who have been on the front lines. Exposing documents that can compromise their security really is distasteful to me. And visa and the rest of those companies are taking the moral high ground.


Here is the exact quote of what you wrote:
Julian Assange should get on his knees and thank God he's in the UK. If one person dies from the compromised security of any leaked document he is guilty of treason and the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment.


The fact that the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment for treason is irrelevant ... Julian Assange cannot commit treason against the US.

You also utterly ignore the fact that no-one on front lines (or anywhere else) has been harmed by the information published by Wikileaks, according to US officialdom itself.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe...
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

Reply Parent Score: 3