Wikileaks Julian Assange nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Source?

It's not a Nobel, you idiot. You sound so stupid that you could have voted for me.

BTW he is an Aussie but he is so pussy looking I have always thought he was an Austrian.

What an insult.

Assange should turn it down.

After all they awarded a NPP to genocidal maniacs like Barack Obama, T Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres.

In fact, the Nobel Peace Prize should be renamed to the Adolph Hitler Spirit Award.

Assange is an idiot. Just a moronic creep looking for attention. Nothing more.

Freedom and Democracy wrote:

Wikileaks Julian Assange nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

I applaud his good work and outstanding successes.

It was the "piece" for those 2 pieces trying to get him arrested back home. How dare they. If you go to the trouble to publish other people's emails, you should get a pass on sexual assault. I mean, who really cares about a couple of meaningless women when we can embarass foreign governments.

Some dumbass 24-year SUBMITTED his name. He was not nominated as per protocol. They get hundreds and thousands of submissions. On the good side of things, you are so stupid that I know you voted for me. Thanks dumbass.

dasource wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-julian-assange-nominated-nobel-peace-prize/story?id=12825383

No other nominations need be submitted.

Assange will be a unanimous choice.

Actually the organization WIKILEAKS was nominated, NOT Julian Assange himself.

I would tend to agree that they are worth the nomination (probably not the actual win though...but the Nobel committee has already proven you dont need to actually accomplish anything to get one these days) if it wasnt for the fact that Assange has been on record saying he specifically wants to take the U.S. down...for him its less about freedom of information and more about damaging an evil empire at all costs. Which makes the motives behind Wikileaks far less noble.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Actually the organization WIKILEAKS was nominated, NOT Julian Assange himself.

I would tend to agree that they are worth the nomination .

Really? What is so noble (pardon the paronym) about Wikileaks?

malmo wrote:

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Actually the organization WIKILEAKS was nominated, NOT Julian Assange himself.

I would tend to agree that they are worth the nomination .

Really? What is so noble (pardon the paronym) about Wikileaks?

Bah! who really knows what the standards are for the Peace Prize? Doesn't seem to have any. The crooks at FIFA and the IOC are frequently nominated.

Mr. Obvious wrote:dards are for the Peace Prize? Doesn't seem to have any. The crooks at FIFA and the IOC are frequently nominated.

I know, the Nobel Committee is looking more and more like the funsters who write for The Onion.

The only tangible element I can distill about Assange is that he is virulently anti-American. Fine, that is his right.

But I fail to understand why he is viewed in any way heroic, other than for some he merely happens to be on the side of anti-Americanism.

Now, if Assange could obtain confidential diplomatic traffic from the People's Republic of China, and then distribute it for the world to see, now, that would be courageous and heroic. Of course, he would have a little bit of a problem, because any notion of nominating him for Nobel prize would have to take into consideration that it would then be for a posthumous award.

By the way, in the most ironic of ways, Assange's leaks will over time end up damaging the very regimes for which he has sympathy. Why? Because diplomatic traffic, even if elliptical, reveals that the regimes run by tin pot dictators and tyrants deviate in private from their statist propaganda and it will ultimately serve to undermine them. The power of mass communications to undermine tyrannical regimes will only increase over time - as we are now seeing in real time in the Middle East.

As for the United States, really, is anyone surprised (we live in a democracy with lots of either outrageous or stupid things being said or done by government officials of all stripes) at the content of the cables? No, no one reasonable here is surprised. I haven't heard of thing that really is surprising or shocking. I am fascinated if he gets brought to trial. He would have to defend himself on the notion the information leaked was largely benign, undermining the hero role to which he seeks. A don't prosecute me because I am a harmless gadfly and loser defense would be a sight to see.

In sum Assange strikes me as a weaselly sort merely seeking a lot of attention.

fomer serious runner wrote:

I am fascinated if he gets brought to trial. He would have to defend himself on the notion the information leaked was largely benign, undermining the hero role to which he seeks. A don't prosecute me because I am a harmless gadfly and loser defense would be a sight to see.

I fail to see what he would be charged with.

His substantive defense would likely be purely First admendment rights--seems like we've coverd that in Pentagon Papers and a number of other places. As he is not an American and none of his actions as far as I know occured on American soil I believe he would also have some procedural defenses available to him. Not sure our courts have any jurisdiction.

um, i love TheOnion...that was acompliment!

No, I don't see this as a first amendment case alone.

Whether he is charged, and the ultimate arbiter of whether a case can be brought, is the degree to which he participated in the scheme to obtain sensitive information. If it fell into his lap then I agree he has a strong first amendment case - indeed strong enough to likely forestall and indictment.

But this guys seems like he has been maniacally devoted to the "cause". Again, speculation is the order of the day, but it strikes me as a bit unrealistic to think he was not part of the scheme to obtain information. And his supporters unwittingly, by making him out to be a hero, are validating the notion he was a central player in the scheme as opposed to a mere distributor of news.

If he was involved in a scheme, he will have to defend on the not so heroic notion that the content was harmless. It would be interesting to see with such a self-important guy.

fomer serious runner wrote:

No, I don't see this as a first amendment case alone.

Whether he is charged, and the ultimate arbiter of whether a case can be brought, is the degree to which he participated in the scheme to obtain sensitive information. If it fell into his lap then I agree he has a strong first amendment case - indeed strong enough to likely forestall and indictment.

Every day I get emails from friends and colleagues with boilerplate warnings at the bottom that say the information in this email is private and the property of ABC Corp. If you are not the addressee of this document destroy it immediately and do not reveal this confidential information .. by penalty of law.

I don't see how possessing confidential or classified governemnt information falls under the umbrella of the First Amendment any more than your garage being filled up with stolen merchandise that a friend gave you?

If you know the information/merchandise is stolen then you have a problem on your hands.

fomer serious runner wrote:

The only tangible element I can distill about Assange is that he is virulently anti-American. Fine, that is his right.

Really? Perhaps you should spend a little less time distilling, and a little more time reading:

Now, if Assange could obtain confidential diplomatic traffic from the People's Republic of China, and then distribute it for the world to see, now, that would be courageous and heroic.

Really? Perhaps you should look at the actual cables, and see what the Chinese diplomats said, instead of accepting second-hand opinions:

I haven't heard of thing that really is surprising or shocking.

With this sentence you've made it clear that you haven't been paying attention, yet you feel the urge to pontificate (at length); may I ask why? What do you really think you can bring to the conversation?