Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Military Politics

Wikileaks Founder Advised To Avoid American Gov't 632

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the good-luck-with-that dept.
eldavojohn writes "Media darling Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has been told by his lawyers to avoid the United States on the grounds that the US military would like to ask him a few questions about his source of the Collateral Murder video. Assange claims to be holding yet more video (of a US attack on a village that allegedly killed 140 civilians in May of 2009), as well as a quarter million sensitive cables relating to the current foreign war operations from the US State Department. Assange surfaced for the cameras in Brussels while speaking about the need for the freedom of information. Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Founder Advised To Avoid American Gov't

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @09:47AM (#32652400)

    The best thing he can do is get as much press as possible, make as many speeches as possible, engage in as much public activity as possible, and stay in a group at all times (no late night strolls alone). If the general public and press don't know who he is, the U.S. government can just grab him and quietly throw him in a secret jail cell somewhere (or even render [wikipedia.org] him to a country willing to get their hands dirty torturing him with more than a little waterboarding).

    It would be nice to live in a world where whistleblowers were rewarded and praised for their efforts. But the truth is that whistleblowers almost always suffer for their sacrifice. At best, they lose their jobs and/or are harassed. At worst, they end up in a filthy jail cell with electrodes on their balls.

    • by rolfwind (528248)

      At worst, they end up in a filthy jail cell with electrodes on their balls.

      Don't you mean dead in a ditch somewhere?

      • by mikael_j (106439)

        No, that's simply a likely outcome of the "filthy jail" option.

        • by MrNaz (730548) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:23AM (#32652816) Homepage

          Or perhaps a bathtub in a motel [bradblog.com].

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by FriendlyLurker (50431)
            Florida computer programmer build vote rigging software and squeals, then the inspector related to the investigating found dead in bathtub over state lines where no autopsy made on suicide victims. What a story - thanks!
    • by tmassa99 (889186) <tmassa99@hot3.14mail.com minus pi> on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:37AM (#32653020)
      Obama, like Bush, has a horrendous track record of using "States Secrets" to cover the collective asses of this government and shield us from the big bad wars. Things like covering the illegal rendition and torture of innocents, like Maher Arar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar [wikipedia.org]

      He's also using it to continually detain a man proven in court to be innocent, Mohamed Hassan Odaini, who has been wrongfully imprisoned for the last 8 years, in defiance of a court order that he be released. Why? Because mid-term elections are coming up soon.
      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/21/pundits/index.html [salon.com]

      The US government and MIC are monsters dressed in the stars and stripes and I thank %deityOfChoice% that there are sites like Wikileaks, and governments like Iceland who are beginning to see the light that is cast by transparency.

      With the SCOTUS decision yesterday, the US can just put Wikileaks on the list of terrorist organizations, and Mr. Assange won't even be able to get a lawyer in the US, assuming he's still alive. The US government, or its people at large, don't care about rights of US citizens, who can now be extra-judicially assassinated (i.e. murdered). What do you think anyone would say if some Australian journalist disappears?

      Only sites like Wikileaks can save us from ourselves. Getting the genie back into the bottle is a difficult task, indeed.
    • by chill (34294)

      Wow, I clicked on the wrong article! I was reading the headline about William Shatner being on the shortlist for Canadian Governor-General, then read your post about waterboarding him and rendering him to a country to be tortured. Yeah, his attempts at singing were bad, but give the guy a break!

  • Good on him (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @09:49AM (#32652422) Homepage

    I understand the need to keep things secret, and I understand that in war shit happens...but that doesn't mean when things go awry, we the people shouldn't know about it. For the same reason why I think uncensored war footage should be shown on the nightly news, maybe if the average civilian actually saw what goes on in war, the public would be less likely to stand by idly while our government spends billions on killing people on the other side of the planet.

    Just my $.02

    • Re:Good on him (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aqualung812 (959532) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:04AM (#32652588)
      I agree with you, but let's show both the killing on both sides and the good things that are done as well. Let people make an informed decision.
      • Re:Good on him (Score:5, Insightful)

        by darjen (879890) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:28AM (#32652882)

        Any of the "good things" that might possibly come out of war can also be done without war.

        • by Myopic (18616)

          Sadly, I disagree. Some things can't be solved without resorting to violence. But, gladly, most things can -- almost everything. We should work toward that goal.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArcherB (796902)

          Any of the "good things" that might possibly come out of war can also be done without war.

          Pol Pot
          Hitler
          Hussien
          Mugabe
          Al-Bashir
          Kim Jong-Il
          Sayyid Ali Khamenei/Ahmadinejad
          Castro
          Stalin
          Mao Tse-Tung
          Milosevic ...
          and many many more...

          None of these dictators could have been/can be removed from office without the use of force. No amount of talk, sanctions, or shame will cause these evil men to willingly give up their power. War is the only answer sometimes. Yes, war is a horror unto itself, but it is nothing compared to the wasted lives and absolute horror people are forced to endure every day under tyr

          • Re:Good on him (Score:4, Informative)

            by Uberbah (647458) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @01:06PM (#32655080)

            None of these dictators could have been/can be removed from office without the use of force

            Pretty much all of the dictators on your list came to power as the result of war. So your list is kind of...pointless. And one, Ahmadinejad, isn't even close to be a dictator - he's a figurehead for the clerics that hold the actual power.

          • Re:Good on him (Score:4, Informative)

            by Alef (605149) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @02:23PM (#32656250)
            You are asserting a lot of things which aren't necessarily true.
            • You gave a lot of examples of dictators, claiming a war is/would be needed to remove them, yet very few of them lost their power due to being invaded. Looking at history, I'd say the proven ways in which a country has gotten rid of a dictator are: Due to him(/her?) dying of old age; due to being overthrown by the people (not seldom quite peacefully, as those siding with the dictator generally tend to give up when they realize they cannot win -- as an example, read up on how Otpor! [wikipedia.org] overthrew Milosevic, which you incidentally claimed could only have been removed by force); or by gradually giving up his/her power, as has been the case with many European countries as they progressed to become constitutional monarchies.
            • Invading a country and getting rid of a dictator doesn't automatically mean it makes the situation better for the people, even in a reasonably long term perspective. Iraq is still not a great place to live, in fact, right now it's likely worse than when Saddam ruled. The primary difference is perhaps that there is no longer a single individual at the top to which we can attribute all the horrors going on.
            • And finally, this whole argument that sometimes you need to go to war to overthrow dictators is rather academical given that nations never go to war unless they think it ultimately gains their own population, or in some cases the political leadership. If they do, the leaders are not doing their job properly. You may not agree this is how it should work, but this is how it works.

            Considering how expensive, brutal and dehumanizing a war is, you'd have to come up with more than simple assertions to convince me, and hopefully most others, that there is absolutely no other workable recourse.

      • Re:Good on him (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:29AM (#32652900) Homepage

        Like in Vietnam.. News covered how the Americans were butchers, killing women and children. And how they were unrefined even killing their own officers.

        Yet the truth was that GI's were fragging officers because they would order them to kill the children or the scumbag enemy were forcing women to fight or they would kill their children (Sounds like the current cowards), or put the team in un-necessary danger... Oops 4 grenades went off in Lt. Dan's tent.... He must have been depressed....

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by strack (1051390)
        thats a great idea. and we gotta start somewhere, and footage that the US military has deemed classified due to its negative propaganda value is a great place to start.
    • Re:Good on him (Score:4, Interesting)

      by magarity (164372) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:11AM (#32652698)

      I understand the need to keep things secret, and I understand that in war shit happens...but that doesn't mean when things go awry, we the people shouldn't know about it
       
      Which is why in the US with the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press one had to find a professional journalist and convince him/her and the editor and publisher that breaking a secret story was worth the potential penalties. With Wikileaks this process is reduced to a snickering game of airing dirty laundry just for the sake of doing it. One day truly serious info will be released and cause the bad sort of trouble that will make the Rosenbergs look like common gossips.

      • Re:Good on him (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MrNaz (730548) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:42AM (#32653098) Homepage

        Tell me, what is the worst that could be released on Wikileaks? Total schematics for the F35 aircraft along with source code? What would the Afghans do with it? Build one out of moistened sand? How about the Chinese? Trust me, the so-called free-world has nothing to fear from a poorly injection-molded plastic F35.

        The military might of the US lies in its industrial output, not its secrets. Secrets only protect the US regime from its own population.

        • No sir (Score:3, Interesting)

          by DesScorp (410532)

          "The military might of the US lies in its industrial output, not its secrets. Secrets only protect the US regime from its own population."

          The military might of the US is primarily about two things: the quality and training of its troops, and its lead in military technology over adversaries. Industrial output means nothing, as our focus is on small numbers of advanced weaponry. We have 20 B-2 bombers. That's it. We'll have 187 F-22 fighters. That's it. Whether it's wise or not, the US is counting on technolo

          • Re:No sir (Score:5, Informative)

            by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @01:06PM (#32655098) Journal

            Industrial output means nothing, as our focus is on small numbers of advanced weaponry. We have 20 B-2 bombers. That's it. We'll have 187 F-22 fighters. That's it. Whether it's wise or not, the US is counting on technological superiority, not the sheer numbers of industrial output.

            I find it interesting that you bring up planes here, because the numbers directly contradict your claims. Take fighters, for example:

            USAF/Navy:
            F-16 - 1250
            F/A-18 - 750
            F-15 - 600
            F-22 - 175 (your 187 figure is the planned count)
            Total: ~2800

            Russian AF/Navy:
            Su-27 - 410
            Su-24 - 320
            MiG-29 - 200
            MiG-31 - ~200
            Su-33 - 23
            Su-30 - 12
            Su-35 - 12
            Total: ~1200

            PLAAF/Navy:
            J-7 - 470
            J-8 - 180
            J-11 - 100
            J-10 - 80
            Su-30 - 90
            Su-27 - 70
            Total: ~920

            The above three countries top the list of those with biggest air forces. As you can see, not only US is #1 in that list, but it actually has more fighter planes than China and Russia combined.

            Furthermore, if you split by technical specs, US leads even more, because e.g. it is the only country to field a 5th gen fighter at all, much less 180 of those (neither Russia nor China could afford this even long-term).

            If you look at other things, you'll see similar numbers. Pretty much all other military plane categories - check. Warships - check. When it comes to main battle tanks, China has two times less than US, and Russia has about twice as much, but if you only consider those which are readily operational (maintenance is a huge problem for Russian armed forces), US still has more - and note that practically all of those are various variations of Abrams, while the majority of Russian acounts is ancient stuff like T-64 and T-72.

            It's true that US army has fewer men enlisted in it, but that's about the only major number on which it is smaller. In terms of equipment - which is what correlates with industrial output - it is the biggest in the world. And if you look at how US did in wars since WW2, it shows - for the most part, American strategy is to steamroll over the enemy by throwing large numbers of superior tech at him, from tanks to cruise missiles.

      • Re:Good on him (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Cyberax (705495) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @11:47AM (#32654096)

        "One day truly serious info will be released and cause the bad sort of trouble that will make the Rosenbergs look like common gossips."

        Any half-competent engineer can build a gun-type nuclear weapon. Should we censor all information about U-235 neutron cross-section because of this? Or maybe require a government-issued license to read particle physics journals?

        The fact of life: you need large industrial base to use any advanced technology. And only state-level actors have it.

    • That sounds a lot like one of the 19th century arguments for public hanging, beheading, and firing squads to be used as the principle means of execution. The idea was that if that public saw the brutality of killing someone, they would be less inclined to support execution as a punishment except in the most extreme cases. Ultimately, the argument failed to sway state legislatures (particularly New York) because it turns out that public executions can actually be a catalyst for further crimes (i.e. the cro
    • by dave420 (699308)
      That might just desensitize people to the horror of war, making war more prevalent.
      • I might agree with you, except for the fact that people don't want to put themselves in those situations. Eventually the military won't have enough boots on the ground to get involved like that.

    • by e2d2 (115622)

      But there are already systems in place to handle these issues inside the DoD. This guy isn't who they want. They want the person in their midst leaking information, going around the chain of command and leaking things to the press, so they can nail their balls to a wall and retrain them on proper procedure. They (DoD/JAG) have to follow the law even if they don't like it.

      • Re:Good on him (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:31AM (#32652918) Journal

        But there are already systems in place to handle these issues inside the DoD.

        And those systems are obviously broken. Top Secret information must cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if leaked. This information leaked, and has caused no damage to national security. The only person who deserves their balls nailed to a wall is the person who classified this inappropriately.

    • Re:Good on him (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Feyshtey (1523799) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @11:05AM (#32653494)

      For the same reason why I think uncensored war footage should be shown on the nightly news, maybe if the average civilian actually saw what goes on in war, the public would be less likely to stand by idly while our government spends billions on killing people on the other side of the planet.

      Just my $.02

      Hey, I'm good with that. Lets bring all the troops home, stop spending money "killing people on the other side of the planet", and only show the footage of the what other people do. How's that grab ya?

      Just think, we can have hours of news footage daily of the plight of Muslim women alone. Being arrested for having a suntan? Being beaten, caned and stoned to death. Marital rape being legal? How about footage of rapes before their beheadings? How about child marriages? How about female castrations as punishment?

      Would you like to talk about kids being strapped with explosives? That'll be juicy footage. How about bombs set off in weddings and funerals? How about 7 year old kids being murdered because their grandfather spoke out against the violence of the Taliban?

      The point is that you're so quick to condemn the military on this situation. And if they were actually knowingly murdering innocent people then they should be condemned. But the fact is that you dont have all the facts, and yet you want desperately to see them all hanged along with the entire US military establishments. You casually ignore the attrocities commited around the world, many of which we have military might in place to help prevent. But the world media is so complicit that they don't report on those things, except for a by-line here and there quickly denouncing the act and distancing themselves, governments, and religions from them. It's glossed over as if to say "Yeah, that's a real shame... So anyway lets get those US Soldiers and hang 'em high!".

      You think that we should show the world how brutal we are? Fine. As soon as we show the world how brutal the WORLD is I'll be right there with you. As soon as we start showing people WHY we are in many of the places we are, instead of shielding everyone here from the horrible acts that people outside our rubber-bumber nation commit then we can start showing them how all people compare. You don't want to show both sides. You don't want to give context. You don't want people here to see how bad some of these dictators and regimes are because you know it will do nothing if not ensure the resolve our nation has for kicking the crap out of some of the nutjobs out there.

      War sucks. It's horrible. It's ugly. It changes people forever. But quite frankly, better that than live in a world where everyone's too afraid to stand up and fight the tyrants because it's not politically correct. You can hope for flowers and bunnies all you want. But there will always be people who really don't care what you hope for and are willing to crush any dream you ever had for your kids. And I'll always be supportive of us not standing there watching and doing nothing, while shielding our citizens because it might damage their delicate psyche's.

  • Yes, he should. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @09:54AM (#32652470) Journal

    Because, he could probably be arrested and tried for espionage.

    • And it won't help him. It is just as easy to abduct & trial him regardless of location.

      Pretty much every country will either ignore that or will even cooperate.

  • "Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?"

    Could JFK? Could John Lennon?

  • Maybe I missed that update, but last time I heard WikiLeaks never confirmed they had any sensitive cables, in fact, so far they have denied it.

  • I'd like to preemptively buy a "Free Assange" wikileaks t-shirt. It doesn't exist yet, but I figure it's only a matter of time before it's necessary.

  • Attention whore (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:07AM (#32652638) Homepage

    By teasing over the alleged videos and documents, he's shifting the focus of attention to himself and how he's treated by the US.

    So. Fucking. What?

    His story is utterly, totally trivial next to the things that he's allegedly holding back.

    So publish already, or shut up. Or publish, then shut up. Either way, just shut up, as Wikileaks itself is rapidly becoming a distraction from the real stories that it ostensibly exists to publish.

    • Re:Attention whore (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Scrameustache (459504) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:31AM (#32652916) Homepage Journal

      Wikileaks itself is rapidly becoming a distraction from the real stories that it ostensibly exists to publish.

      Wikileaks is becoming one of its own valid stories: They're harassed at the international level by a government that keeps stating publicly that it supports freedom of press.
      The leaks they have are only half the story, what people are willing to do to stop the leaks is the other half.

      • Re:Attention whore (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @11:45AM (#32654062) Homepage

        Wikileaks is becoming one of its own valid stories

        Wikileaks is desperately attempting to become a story. By doing so, they're detracting attention from the actual important stories that they run. What are we debating here: the mass murder of innocent civilians, or Wikileaks?

        They're harassed at the international level

        No. No, they are not. You've bought Assange's story. There is no evidence, other than his assertions, that he is being "harassed" at any level, let alone the international. Remember when he claimed his passport had been "seized", and it turned out to be that all that happened was that it had been pointed out to him that it was due to expire?

        He's been threatening to release these videos and documents for months now, in what has become a rather pathetic attempt to get some attention from the Big Bad US. That shows that he's more interested in becoming a cause célèbre than in actually doing what he set out to do: publish and damn their eyes.

        The man has or had good intentions, but now he's pulling a Jimbo Wales, and getting delusions that he's bigger than his creation, when he needs to be as anonymous as his sources.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:10AM (#32652678)

    While the idea of Wikileaks is still quite popular; with more revelations about Wikileaks, Assange is no longer the media darling with everyone taking a more critical view of the man behind Wikileaks.

    America's oldest whistleblowing website Cryptome which Wikileaks described as a 'venerabe anti secrecy organization' has collated the most details about what happens within Wikileaks. Cryptome has published all of Wikileaks founder Assange's chats over a few years as well as Wikileaks insider details about how they need $55,000 to run servers but as much as $200,000 is used by the men who run Wikileaks for business class travel, hotels etc.

    Read Cryptome to see that despite its idealistic mission, at some level Wikileaks behaves like another secret Government department with a couple of people deciding what is public interest.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by b0bby (201198)

      The New Yorker had an interesting piece on Assange & the publishing of the video recently. It discussed how he rented a house in Iceland for the process, the number of people helping make it all happen smoothly, etc. The fact is, doing that kind of stuff costs money. I'm sure he's no saint, but I think it's a good thing to have a site like Wikileaks out there as a check on excessive government secrecy. $200k isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @11:13AM (#32653602)

      While the idea of Wikileaks is still quite popular; with more revelations about Wikileaks, Assange is no longer the media darling with everyone taking a more critical view of the man behind Wikileaks.

      Yeah, because when you out corrupt business practices, everyone but the criminals you're exposing can get behind that and you're everyone's pal. When you're outing soldiers for gunning down unarmed children in broad daylight, there are some people who think you're attacking the military.

      they need $55,000 to run servers but as much as $200,000 is used by the men who run Wikileaks for business class travel, hotels etc.

      Goodness me, they have other expenses besides server costs in their efforts to do real journalism? Those evil bastards!!!

      Read Cryptome to see that despite its idealistic mission, at some level Wikileaks behaves like another secret Government department with a couple of people deciding what is public interest.

      Seems like a no-brainer that it takes some effort and restraint to remain credible while publishing these important stories. You can't just publish any unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, then publish a real story and expect anyone to take you seriously.

    • by twoallbeefpatties (615632) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @11:17AM (#32653666)
      Speaking as someone who donates to Wikileaks, if they have to use some of that money for travel and hotels in order to maintain the privacy of whistleblowers and to keep the organization's head moving so that he isn't thrown into a holding cell somewhere, then I am perfectly fine with my money going to those functions.
  • After reading the comments in this post, I think I am going to go buy stock in Reynolds Aluminum. I never knew how many foil-hatters there were in the world and on the internet.

    • Assange is spending his time publishing things that the most powerful people in the world want to keep private. If anyone has a reason to be paranoid, it is him -- this is not a case of tin foil hats, this is a case of a person with some really powerful enemies.
  • Our US thuggery is fairly predictable. I'm sure the CIA or equivalent has already been given hit orders. It will be made to look like an accident (small plane crash, car crash, mystery disease, etc). Such is necessary for plausible deniability.

    Poor bastard, he will be missed.

    • by salesgeek (263995) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:29AM (#32652898) Homepage

      Our US thuggery is fairly predictable. I'm sure the CIA or equivalent has already been given hit orders.

      You've seen a few too many movies.

      More than likely, Assange is having his lawyers try to get some kind of amnesty deal in turn for testimony and/or returning the materials. The only danger to Assange is that he be arrested, held and tried like any other person who breaks the law. He may even get off at trial due to Constitutional protection of freedom of the press.

      Playing up the danger does get Wikileaks more press, so bonus points for good guerrilla PR for Assange.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by BobMcD (601576)

        Our US thuggery is fairly predictable. I'm sure the CIA or equivalent has already been given hit orders.

        You've seen a few too many movies.

        Before attempting to dismiss other's fears as being mere fantasty, do a little research:

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491 [go.com]

        This article demonstrates that not only do 'hit orders' exist, but they are not prohibited from using such orders against citizens who are constitutionally guaranteed to stand trial.

        So while parent may have seen too many movies, you, dear friend, have seen too few congressional hearings.

  • x 5 because Assange may have U.S., British, Canadian, Australian and others looking to do a Mossad action on him as a warning to the others who have anything whatsover to do with Wikileaks.

    Play in the bear cage? Better be the biggest bear.

  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:29AM (#32652894)

    ... the US military would like to ask him a few questions ...

    Sadly, there was a time when this simply meant what it says. Now, the guy could end up getting water-boarded at some US secret prison in a third-world country - or New Jersey (shudder). Of course, the US doesn't torture people. Paying other people to do it is another matter.

    Excuse me, there's a knock on the door ...

  • by joeszilagyi (635484) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:35AM (#32652964)
    Even a future without you, one way or the other. Is Wikileaks structured--really, be honest--so that if you are forced to 'retire' that operationally it will be a blip on the radar? Is the project and it's resources designed to survive you?
  • by russotto (537200) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @10:43AM (#32653124) Journal

    Despite all the noise, the most sinister claims made about the US government are that

    1) The self-confessed whistleblower, Manning, is being held "incommunicado" in Kuwait and
    2) The military would like to question Assange.

    Manning hasn't been disappeared, vaporized, liquidated, or what have you; there's not even an allegation that the UCMJ has been violated in his case. And there's nothing at all strange or nefarious about the military wanting to question someone who received classified material; they'd hardly be doing their job if they didn't. If I was Assange I'd certainly avoid the US, but ascribing evil intentions or actions to the US military or the government in general is at least premature.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by darjen (879890)

      From what I've seen over the past few years, ascribing evil intentions to the military and US government should be our default position by now. We still haven't learned much from history yet.

  • Protection (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Tuesday June 22, 2010 @11:03AM (#32653442)
    I believe Julian already has a high enough profile to protect him from danger. Whoa cometh to the US Government should anything happen to him. The international pressure would be enormous and intense at a time when the US is at an all time international relations low. As a US Citizen, I appreciate his valor in enforcing my government's transparency initiatives. If President Obama is going to promise greater transparency, then by golly, he should deliver on it and if it takes Julian to embarrass him by pointing out his political non-speak, so be it. Wikileaks is holding President Obama's feet to the fire over transparency initiatives and I am the happier for it!

A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.

Working...