[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1345184253' post='4970444']The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge.

He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them.

I called this "propaganda" because you're greatly underestimating the amount of redaction that occurred, and exaggerating the impacts caused by mistaken gaps in redaction. For example, you claimed that "In some cases it put families in direct harm", which is complete hyperbole... and furthermore, the US govt was forced to admit that, despite trying hard to find a case, they could not find a single case where someone had come to harm because of these leaks (I'd like to think that they 'reeled in' the informants who were put at risk by the leak to prevent this).

Read again: They didn't knowingly publish informants names, the vast majority of these names were redacted, but a small number slipped through. Everyone who published these documents and worked on the redaction process (i.e. Wikileaks, NYT, Guardian, etc) all fucked up there, by accident. It was not their intent to put anyone in harms way, [/quote]
I'm aware it may not have been on purpose, but that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant investigation. Similarly accidentally doing wrong does not excuse you from the repercussions. Nor does doing any amount of right excuse you from obeying the law of two countries(UK/Sweden).

What point are you trying to make here? That journalists aren't always ethical? Saying that Wikileaks has broken the law here is only true if they actually committed the theft in the first place, not if they were journalists publishing the material.[/quote]
It's also illegal to solicit people to commit the crime, which, being a site whose express purpose is to leak confidential information, at least warrants investigation.

For a bit of perspective, contrast this accidental leaking of a few informants names with the deliberate leaking of the name of an undercover CIA field agent by the Bush administration for political gain and petty revenge. In that case, no journalists were charged, despite them being the unethical tool that broadcast the dangerous information.[/quote]
You're saying this like I condone that instance or any other instances similar, such as Obama's use of the operation that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden. I do not condone either.

[edit]BTW, it's incredibly frustrating to try and talk to you, way2lazy, as whenever anyone asks you a tricky question about one of your opinions, or demonstrates that you're speaking falsehoods, you simply ignore it and move on to the next bit of nit-picking (not just in this topic either). There's at least half a dozen un-answered questions directed at you here. Maybe I'll join you in this ignorance, it seems cozy...
[/quote]
Go back and read your own replies. You're at least as bad as I am. Perhaps it's time to get introspective and realize you're just doing the same thing arguing the opposite perspective.

I started posting in this thread just stating known facts. That was met with hyperbole and alarmism which drew me to give a counter perspective, not necessarily one I believe in, that was equally as hyperbolic on some points. I've stated I was being hyperbolic just to paint the opposite picture on some points previously.

To be clear, you are assuming that Assange shouldn't be extradited after failing his appeal multiple times. You are assuming that Sweden is extraditing him with the express purpose of getting him into American custody. You are assuming that should he be brought into American custody that he will not have a fair trial, and that he will be charged with the death penalty. Without a very solid case I find the latter unlikely as it would cause huge political fallout by the media during an election year.

The most likely scenario is that the US would have extradited him from the UK anyway if it wanted to, but he was already being extradited to Sweden. The US probably didn't want to pressure UK courts with a decision between two extraditions. Sweden and the UK probably don't want to say he won't be extradited to the US because it will break treaties with the US; this does not mean they will not give investigation into extradition before doing/not doing so. This is what I think the most likely situation is, but I'm not running in here screaming foul because the only facts we know are that he is avoiding being questioned in an investigation for his sexual assault of two women in Sweden.

BTW, it's incredibly frustrating to try and talk to you, way2lazy,

Go back and read your own replies. You're at least as bad as I am.
[/quote]

Well, although you two seem to frustrate each other, thank-you both for what seemed to me anyways to be one of the more intelligent discussions on this matter that I have read lately.

So, where does the past self-appointed public spokesperson of Anonymous work? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, but this blind infatuation with journalists is totally unrealistic; they're professional stalkers who sell strife, by definition.

Here in Sweden we're pretty convinced he should be put on trial for rape. He's got nothing to hide... right?