Spanish and US governments conspired to squash prosecution of soldiers who killed Reuters journalist

You’re forgetting about American Exceptionalism, you Commie Bastard!


Whose investigations are we talking about? The Pentagon’s? Good enough for me, but probably not enough for the Spanish. It’s not as though the US has any moral standing to argue with other states’ claims to extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Maybe they can just get a friendly nation to cook up some sex charges or something.


No doubt phantom “spotters” were also to blame for the bombing of Al Jazeera’s headquarters and Abu Dhabi TV’s headquarters in the same year.


Huh. Freedom House doesn’t seem to agree with you. Amnesty International seems to call for terrorists to be tried in the US court system, so it doesn’t seem to think that our courts are as deeply flawed as you argue.

It’s nice to see that you hold your opinions so dear that you’re willing to go to any lengths to validate them, though.

Is there any citable evidence that the tank intentially shelled the building holding the journalists?

ETA - others responded before I posted. So they thought that there were spotters in the building and returned fire.

No doubt Wikileaks has exposed a huge campaign of lies and disinformation and a secret plot to assassinate journalists (except in that hotel, where only two out of dozens were marked for death).

Oh, wait, Wikileaks exposed no such thing.

Wasn’t this the point of the Spanish investigation?

Hopefully you understood what point you were trying to make here, because I sure as hell didn’t.

The point is that you were implying your support for half-baked conspiracy theories (the Pentagon targeting journalists) with no evidence for your fringe beliefs.

And I was also taking a shot at those who think Wikileaks has caught the US government in big lies, a la the Pentagon Papers.

So essentially you are supportive of vigilante justice, as long as you are angry at the accused? Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

In reference to the thread in GD about the morality of Wikileaks critics, is seems that at least some of the Wikileaks supporters have no higher moral code than that of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, who call for an attack on Assange, just as the OP calls for attacks on politicians he doesn’t agree with.

Now that is really interesting.

Supportive? Not really. Could I really work up any outrage if elected officials who’d sold their own countrymen out, and subverted their country’s legal system, came to harm? Not really.

I didn’t call for any attack on anybody. Learn to read, idiot.

God, you’re really butthurt over this whole WikiLeaks shit aren’t you? I mean, butthurt as in spew your shit all over multiple threads, as if WikiLeaks have got evidence of you having a liaison with a horse or something, only to abandon the thread as soon as somebody asks you to substantiate anything you wrote. Have you still not answered Lantern’s question in the other thread? You know, the thread that you abandoned as soon as somebody called on your pleas to prosecute Assange, law be damned?

I’m honestly not sure which question you’re talking about. I think I responded to questions about China and journalism, or something like that. He then went on to say I was a hypocrite, while stating what I took to be rhetorical questions. In any case, he didn’t seem to press the matter, so what is your problem, exactly? What is the question you want me to answer?

As far as “spewing my shit all over,” it seems to me that you participate in just as many threads on this topic as I do.

And for all my interest in the subject – I think it is a very interesting subject – aside from calling someone juvenile, I think I handle myself with a bit more decorum than the juveniles who can’t keep from insulting people they happen to disagree with.

I want you to quit abandoning threads and wasting everybody’s time debating with you. He asked you under what conditions you’d see American journalists extradited to Britain for revealing British secrets. Naturally, you disingenuously interpreted his original query in the narrowest way possible, focusing on his example of Chinese state secrets, instead of doing the obvious, and addressing the wider case. Care to answer?

Spaniard chiming here.

The reaction in Spain, apart from a lawsuit that the family of the dead journalist have presented, has been so far, basically, “meh”.

Spain is right now undergoing the mother of all recessions, and it seems that the general population have much more urgent things to think about than the death of a war correspondent 7 years ago.

There was nothing disingenuous in my response. Just because you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean I’m prevaricating.

I’m not sure I understand why you think I “fled” the thread. It seems I returned to post several times after Lantern’s last post. Sure, I didn’t respond to his last post, which I took to be a parting jab as he exited the conversation.

To the extent that I did not feel his comment was worth responding to, I’m curious what your real goal here is: do you want me to participate more in these debates? Because your previous comment seems to say that you’d rather I shut up about it. It seems like comments I’d expect from someone with a borderline personality disorder: “Shut up and respond to this question!!!”

And as for the specific question you asked: I’m not sure what the circumstances are in which I would think that an American should be extradited to another country for revealing classified information. I would think that our laws would probably prevent a journalist from being extradited under most conditions.

In an alternate universe where that would not be an issue, under no circumstances would I support extraditing someone from the US to a country that has an unfair legal system. On the other hand, if someone in the US revealed secret information that, say, directly led to some catastrophic event like the assassination of the Queen, then I’d be inclined to say that they should answer for what they did.

And my immediate thought is that Assange doesn’t seem like a journalist to me. Journalism, to me, is more than just posting someone else’s words on a virtual streetcorner. I’m open to arguments on why he’s a journalist, but it seems to me that he is probably doing harm to the profession of journalism, as stated in this op-ed.

But I reject that Julian Assange is a journalist. I don’t think posting stolen documents on a website is journalism

If it wasn’t disingenuous, you’re retarded. You chose to answer the question as narrowly as possible, or your limited intellect prevented you seeing the wider point of the question at hand. Your choice.

You’re a damned hypocrite. You’re more than willing to call for the extradition of a foreign national for revealing mildly embarrassing details of American foreign policy, despite owing no fealty to the United States, under the knowledge that your own laws prevent fellow Americans for being extradited for revealing much the same information about foreign governments. Further, the only circumstance you can name where you’d support extradition of an American is something as catastrophic as revealing state secrets that led to the assassination of an allied head of state.

Should I respond, or shut up?