UT, and your point is ?
Sorry, I realize that's being a bit sarcastic.
But quotes are from the article, and I feel they are needed for understanding of the situation.

What Wikileaks exposed is the the US diplomatic pressure on Germany being accomplices
to the actions of the CIA's actions of rendition and torture.

Fair and balanced in America

The link also provides a video of the TV segment.

Huffington Post
Dec 9, 2010

A Democratic Fox News analyst called for the assassination
of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

What defines a news organization? More to the point, once the precedent of howWikileaks (whatever they are) is handled in this situation, how can that be made to NOT apply to news organizations? What is the clear, legal separation?

What about unaffiliated individuals who may see information on the internet and post a link to it somewhere else (such as this message board)? Are we protected from prosecution? Is Undertoad?

This is genuine curiosity on my part--I'm not asking because I think I already know the answer.

Flint, I think the old definitions of "news organization" is extinct.

But it is just because of your remark/question about liability, and copyrights,
when I re-post some item that I try to take real care with links, citations, and quote-boxes for the copied text.

My understanding is that copyright infringements are avoided if there is a good faith effort
to provide the citation AND the copied material is not the entire document.
That way, the reader has reason and means to go back to the original.

Treason? Beckel must be using a different dictionary than everybody else.

I guess my take would be based on "intent". What is Wikileaks intent on publishing the data, and what is a news organizations intent on publishing the data. I don't ever recall that the NYT or any other news organization stated their intent was to go after governments and try to bring them down. Assange has declared himself to be the judge of what is right and wrong. He is nothing more than an internet terrorist and should be treated as such.

Editorial on those "real" journalists:

The willingness of leading media outlets to amplify clear falsehoods highlights their true allegiances

I can't even read your comments.
Is brainwashing that effective?
Take a fucking step out of your little shells, and take a look at the bigger picture.

Since we're all not smart enough to see the one true objective reality that is clear to you, perhaps a small dose of explaining what the ƒuck you are even talking about could go to great lengths?

I'm not referring to all comments here.
I saw a wikileaks thread here, so i got all excited, entered, to find comments against wikileaks, and against Assange.
What more is needed to be said on my behalf?
I'm not going to enter a debate about this.
No argument can be made against Assange and what he's doing.
I see the word Treason?
How retarded does someone have to be to use that word in this discussion?
So yeah, i'm not planning on having a debate with the mentally handicapped.

Woah other people have different opinions than you!? Get the fuck outta town.

If you're done uselessly crying and calling people "retards" instead of contributing, feel free to step in with some rational points that can be debated. Otherwise go cry somewhere else.

If this discussion revolves around treason, then no, as i said, I'm not interested in having a debate with the mentally handicapped.
Why don't we put American people an trial for treason against Iraq or Afghanistan.
We can't? I wonder why.....

There already is a guy on trial for treason.... you know that member of the military who broke his oath and the law by stealing and giving away classified documents. Derp.

Yeah, he's not Assange.
Tell me this... why are a percentage of American's concentrating on Wikileaks for leaking the truths about their Government and foreign policies, rather than studying the content of the leaks which expose the actions of their government and foreign policies?

These studies would result loss of Ego, loss of Patriotism, and possible revolution.
How is Assange the bad guy in this equation?

As far as I could tell in this thread only the Fox News moron quoted in post 121 called him a traitor. All the other references were to his source.