ztrzi2000

I believe it, mikeeeemiller. Not everyone has a price. There are certain lines that some people will not cross for any amount of money, even if they freely cross lines that some may see as very close to those that they adamantly refuse to cross. There was a story on here a while ago about a dancer who attacked a customer rather viciously after he propositioned her. Of course, such occurrences are rare, and I am sure that is not going to happen in your situation, but they have been known to happen, so I would just be careful in general.

I agree with Prim0 that there should be limits to freedom of speech. Speech that incites violence, or fraudulent speech, for example, ought to remain illegal. I have heard the official United States government claim that the releases endanger American lives, and from what I have heard, wikileaks has even asked the government if it would help wikileaks "scrub" the releases to remove especially sensitive information, which, I imagine, may include the identities of confidential sources or other such people who would directly be put at risk, and the government refused to help wikileaks to identify and remove such information. To some extent, even speech that indirectly poses a threat ought to be protected, in my opinion, whereas speech that directly poses a threat ought not to be protected. For example, I would say that a release that shows American soldiers doing something wrong, which then results in further general international anger against the USA would be warranted and should be protected. Whistle-blowing is important to the ability of any organization to be able to make corrections to bad behavior, instead of simply covering it up and allowing it to continue. It is true that a general increase in the level of anti-American sentiment might result, and that might result in one more attack than otherwise might have been carried out, and that might result in one more death than might have otherwise occurred. However, the progression of causes and effects I just illustrated is too long and indirect to be traced. The fact that a certain release would make some people upset is insufficient cause to justify banning it, especially if it reveals unjustifiable action. I have no sympathy for soldiers who violate rules of engagement or who commit war crimes. If we do not endorse their criminal actions, then we should feel no shame in revealing them. On the other hand, speech that outs a specific informant, spy, or other covert operator who has been performing their job honorably would result in specific, rather than general, harm, and thus, I would say that such a release would not be warranted and should not be protected. As far as I have heard, there have been no such releases from wikileaks that directly put anyone in danger. I agree with Prim0 that no such release should be tolerated. If something of that nature ever does happen, though, I would hope that the government could deal with it openly and honorably according to the rule of law.

I agree with georgmicrodong. I would not hold much hope in continuing "to work on her." If you have discussed it and she has told you "no," then I would leave it at that, regardless of my feelings about her. It is far better to walk away from someone who might have given you what you want than to push too hard and scare or upset someone who is not interested in giving you what you want, and from what I have read so far, my guess is that you are closer to the latter.

I heard on the radio some suspicion that the whole deal with his arrest and extradition to Sweden could be overblown for the purpose of eventually putting him physically in the hands of the United States government. I presume that this would be so that they can do whatever they feel they need to do in order to stop him and perhaps to make an example of him so that others would be less likely to publish leaked material like this. I can certainly see where big johnson can justify his opinion that Assange has damaged the United States, but it would seem, from my perspective, that all he has done is publish some embarrassing truths. Some of the things that have been published on wikileaks offer a very disturbing raw glimpse into the way that American agents execute their duties. However, if we do not take notice of and bring to light the ugly side of what our representatives are doing, then we can neither stop those things that are truly wrong nor give our consent to those things that are truly necessary. Every citizen has an equal stake in the government, and I feel that we have a right to know how our representatives, who are in a way our own employees, who administer their duties only by the consent of us, the governed, actually conduct their business. In my opinion, he has advanced truth in a real way by offering the world a site for the indiscriminate exposure of sensitive government information, and also for strongly standing by it. If the public face of the United States or any other country suffers because of it, then it would seem to me that they have themselves to blame, not for allowing the release of the information, but for doing the very things that those releases show them doing. In conclusion, I agree with big johnson that governments must play by the rules. It is my sincere hope that Assange receives the full and complete measure of his rights and responsibilities in accordance with the rule of law with regard to all of his dealings. If he did, in fact, break the law in Sweden, then he should receive a just and fair penalty in accordance with the way that that particular law is routinely enforced. If not, then he should be released. With all due respect to alternate opinions, with thanks to those who have brought this topic to our attention and to those who have commented on it, and with a sincere hope that this discourse remains coherent and civil, I now relinquish the soapbox.

I agree with Prim0. Whenever I get a little upset at conservative regulation here in the United States of America, all I need is to look to Asia, Africa, or the Middle East to see how things could be much worse. I do not consider myself to be patriotic, but when I was coming back home from a trip abroad, a friend of mine and I felt compelled to sing "The Star Spangled Banner" together as we saw the flag at the airport as we were landing. America is not perfect by a long shot, but I would count us as in a better situation than most of the world. Agreed, Prim0. Go America.