Does Palin Want to Whack Assange?

Kim Jong-un, “Ha,ha,ha….Obama the boy is an idiot, with this wikileaks, no asian countirs want to be American allie anymore…. Soon we’ll be Obama’s one and only most trusted friend

She’s absolutely right!

This is why the Constitution allows for Letters of Marquis and Reprisal – to allow enemies of the state to disappear.

The left, not the right, is about violence. Democide, death by government, took upwards of 150 million lives in the 20th century alone.
The mass murders commited by the Soviets, the National Socialists, the Chinese Communists, the Khmr Rouge, the North Vietnamese, among many others, demonstrate the depravity of the those that will use the brute power of government to impose their views.

Obama had in fact tried to whack Assange even more clumsily and despicably. Obama did it in a way only a Democrat, liberal can only do, ie conduct a smearing campaign against Assange accusing him of rape and molestation !!! This is a joke and backfire, and help Assange gained public sympathy as most people perceive that this is an unfair attack against one’s personal life. Obama should whack Assange like a gentleman but he whacks him like eunuch

I am okay with it — enemies of this country should think twice before bringing harm to us. BTW it wouldn’t be the first time we whacked someone either.

This is treason in my opinion and deserves nothing less than death.
And no….I’m not being sarcastic.

For once I agree with Sarah Palin – we should make an example of Assange. He should be arrested and tried as an enemy combatant, or he should meet with a litle unexplainable accident and never be heard from again. Maybe Israel could help us with this – they do this kind of thing all the time to people who betray them.

Sarah and her minions are clueless and every time they open their mouths they confirm it. Why the media continues to shine a light on this lightweight is the question. God save us from the idiots.

At this point I doubt it matters whether Assange committed a crime. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and if the man is jailed for life or even killed, Wikileaks will presumably continue to exist, and perhaps other similar services will also begin cropping up.
I think the important point is a formal one (not so much about content), and I think we’re missing what’s most important here if we focus on the U.S. government, which is obviously the easiest target on the planet for any whistleblower (given its sheer size and influence).
Fact is, whistleblowers now have an alternative outlet for their complaints. Given that every large organization, corporation, government has at least one disgruntled employee, it’s not altogether unreasonable to assume that more and more confidentiality agreements will be undermined, and it’s interesting to speculate on whether this could have serious social consequences over the next decade.
The philosophical (even spiritual) implications have to do with SECRECY – what purpose does it serve in our society and would we perhaps be better off (i.e., more enlightened) without it or at least much less of it? Perhaps Wikileaks and its ilk will help us find a preliminary answer…

To argue “secrets” are bad is to take this issue to the absurd level of a preschooler. Maybe logic like that works when playing Candyland and drinking out of a spill-proof cup, but not in the world beyond that.
Perhaps ABC should reveal all emails from all its employees, all contracts, all conversations (internal and external), the names, addresses, ages, and Social Security numbers of everyone who ever interacted with it (contractors, employees, officers, and others), bank records for everyone, and everything else. It’s only a news organization, not like ABC deals with national and international security and has 300 million people to protect. So where’s the harm? Oops, guess the logic is so weak it’s best not to repeat it in writing.

What Palin means is that we should spend billions of more dollars unsuccessfully, just as we have looking for Bin Laden. The bottom line is that Palin does not understand what the laws are, much less the concept of Rule of Law. Like it or not, Assange has no more committed a crime than the New York Times has. Both are releasing these documents. Both are, for better or worse, protected by the 1st Amendment.

What a stretch! Every now and then I’ll read a MSM article, just to check in to see if they’ve recovered their integrity. This article disappoints…again.
If Palin asks why hasn’t Obama gone after UBL with the same urgency, she’s talking about…uh..urgency, not assassination – the author, alone, makes that leap to, presumably, cash in on interest in Palin with a provacative headline. Problem is, once reader sees the headline has no basis – it will only strengthen the readers resolve never to trust ABC again.
btw…a better question might be why doesn’t ABC ask the questions Palin does?

Even if one were to assassinate Assange,that would not stop WIkileaks. You cannot try a foreign national for treason as he is not an American, This just illustrates Palin ignorance about foreign affairs. Even Republican diplomats such as Schultz and Dr. Kissinger understood and were facile in the complexity of diplomacy, something Palin is either clueless about and is just pandering to her base.