Michael Moore: "Why I'm Posting Bail For WikiLeaks Founder"

[SteelerEmpire]

This guy's really playing with fire now... in my opinion...
_____________________________

December 14th, 2010 6:23 AM
Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange

By Michael Moore

Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

LINK: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mi...ing-bail-money

[7SteelGal43]

Michael Moore really is a piece of shit. Maybe he was lamenting his 15 minutes of fame being gone and is trying for just 15 more. Asshole.

[venom]

Typical anti-American asswipe . Must be a liberal .

[SteelMember]

He's probably funding his new movie...

Top Secret: What the government hides for you.

Stir it up, Mike. Everyone should know everything. Freedom if information and all.

[fansince'76]

He's probably funding his new movie...

Top Secret: What the government hides for you.

Stir it up, Mike. Everyone should know everything. Freedom if information and all.

[Godfather]

Someone needs to do a "Sicko" documentary about Masscare.

And write a Lies and Lying Liars book about the left.

[X-Terminator]

Can we just kick this fuckin' guy out of the country already, since he obviously hates it so much? Just gather up all of the America-haters, give them an island and let them go start their own utopian society.

SO sick and tired of Moore, MoveOn.org and the assjacks who follow them.

[JonM229]

Even as a liberal, I could never stand Michael Moore. I've never sat through any of his movies and never plan to.

[LLT]

[st33lersguy]

The reason Michael Moore is posting bail? Because he is a traitor.

[LLT]

Even as a liberal, I could never stand Michael Moore. I've never sat through any of his movies and never plan to.

Thats because you are an ideological Liberal...not a knee-jerk Liberal.

[7SteelGal43]

Speaking of Michael Moore and Wikileaks, I found this interesting.Wonder if Michael Moore will put a 'stop payment' on that check he wrote for Mr Wikileaks bail ?!


http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/1...n-health-care/

[GoSlash27]

I applaud Moore for posting Assange's bail, even if he *is* a disgusting weasel. Assange is completely within his rights to publish that info (even if it does make our government look bad) and the so-called "rape" charges (actually consentual sex without a condom) are obviously garbage.
Our media has laid down on the job keeping our government honest and he's the only guy with enough stones to do it for them.

[7SteelGal43]

So exactly how much disclosure does our government owe us, GoSlash ? Especially on matters of national security, military operations, things of that nature ?

[beSteelmyheart]

Did he actually make reports on troop movements or tactical strategy? Or did he just expose the equivalent of political gossip? there is a big difference.

[GoSlash27]

So exactly how much disclosure does our government owe us, GoSlash ? Especially on matters of national security, military operations, things of that nature ?

Well... you'll notice that our government tends to classify a lot more these days than they did in the past. Not just on the items you mentioned, but literally everything that might be politically embarrassing. But that's a side-issue. What we're talking about here is the government obeying their own Constitution and following due process. The government owes us that 100% of the time.

[7SteelGal43]

Did he actually make reports on troop movements or tactical strategy? Or did he just expose the equivalent of political gossip? there is a big difference.

A lot of military actions/movements were posted at Wikileaks (after the fact). I still stand by my assertion that one has to be careful how much disclosure we expect from our government and how much information (and what information) is leaked. Back in the day, we had a word for it. Treason.

[The WH]

The government owes it the American people alot more disclosure than has been available in the past 50 years for sure.

[GoSlash27]

A lot of military actions/movements were posted at Wikileaks (after the fact). I still stand by my assertion that one has to be careful how much disclosure we expect from our government and how much information (and what information) is leaked. Back in the day, we had a word for it. Treason.

"Treason" is a narrowly defined legal term. One must aid and abet the enemy with no less than 2 witnesses during wartime. None of those apply here. Hell, Assange ain't even a U.S. citizen.

[7SteelGal43]

"Treason" is a narrowly defined legal term. One must aid and abet the enemy with no less than 2 witnesses during wartime. None of those apply here. Hell, Assange ain't even a U.S. citizen.

ok, would you prefer "enemy of the state" ?

[The WH]

ok, would you prefer "enemy of the state" ?

what is he doing that's so threatening?

[beSteelmyheart]

what is he doing that's so threatening?

Letting truth be known? Careful, BoogyMen don't like the Sheeple to know the truth.

[Craic]

The government owes it the American people alot more disclosure than has been available in the past 50 years for sure.

Abso-freaken-lutely not.

A govt. that can't keep black ops. black is a govt. destined to fail. This world isn't a pretty "let's all sing kumbaya and have a coke" world. It's a .307 at 1200 yards through the coke bottle right between the eyes while he's singing Kumbaya world. As much as he is hated and derided, Machiavelli was dead on accurate. That is probably WHY he was (and is) hated.

We elect a govt. to provide for our national defense, justice/protection of rights between/within the states, and commerce between the states. It seems kind of asinine to elect a govt. to provide for nat. defense, then hinder them at every single turn with questions and second guesses and what ifs (see church committee hearings), then demand a hundred laws tying their hands(see for instance, the wall between CIA-FBI), then rake them over the coals when 9-11 happens, or supposedly bad intel in Iraq on WMD (oops, can't just snipe Saddam, silly church committee), or now, as we face the possiblity of a horrid war once again on the Korean peninsula.

[7SteelGal43]

what is he doing that's so threatening?

WH, if you don't get it, I damn sure can't 'splain it to ya. See Preachers post just above me....that 'bout sums it up !

[GoSlash27]

ok, would you prefer "enemy of the state" ?

Nope. There is no declared state of war, and hence no "enemy". It would be one thing if Assange had converted to Islam and declared Jihad on America, but he didn't. His aim isn't to subvert and destroy us, but rather to correct what he sees as improper behavior through informing the voters. This is Constitutionally protected First Amendment behavior, and Supreme Court precedent is on his side.
Everyone from Holder on down knows this, so the question must be answered: If you know that you cannot legally touch this guy for what he's doing, does that make it okay to abuse your authority in order to stop him?
If this is a truly just and benevolent government, the answer should be obvious.

[Wallace108]

Although I'm all for exposing government corruption, I don't think it's a good idea to expose national-security secrets and sensitive information, including confidential conversations between government leaders. Preacher summed it up pretty well.

[Craic]

Nope. There is no declared state of war, and hence no "enemy". It would be one thing if Assange had converted to Islam and declared Jihad on America, but he didn't. His aim isn't to subvert and destroy us, but rather to correct what he sees as improper behavior through informing the voters. This is Constitutionally protected First Amendment behavior, and Supreme Court precedent is on his side.
Everyone from Holder on down knows this, so the question must be answered: If you know that you cannot legally touch this guy for what he's doing, does that make it okay to abuse your authority in order to stop him?
If this is a truly just and benevolent government, the answer should be obvious.

The problem is, legality and illegality are quite fluid at this level of statecraft. "Presidential Findings" quite often make the illegal into legal and legal into illegal. Posse commitatis? Only illegal because of a presidential finding. At any moment, it can be wiped away legally. No assasinations of heads of state? Actually, Church hearings not withstanding, THAT became law only through a presidential finding. "National Security" is also a giant trump card. In truth, the president simply has to declare something as a threat to our national security, give the order, and hunting season is open, with no bag limit. Heck, the operation doesn't even have to be reported to congress until 48 hours AFTER it has happened.

To quote a line from "The Cutting Edge", Legaaaality ellegaaaality-- It grey area!

[The WH]

WH, if you don't get it, I damn sure can't 'splain it to ya. See Preachers post just above me....that 'bout sums it up !

I meant Michael Moore. I may have missed the post that brought the conversation focus back on the wikiLeaks founder. Sorry bout that.

[7SteelGal43]

I meant Michael Moore. I may have missed the post that brought the conversation focus back on the wikiLeaks founder. Sorry bout that.

LOL it's applicable to both !!! OK OK, Michael Moore was simply showing his blinded by anti-American bias stupidity. Wiki-leaks founder....enemy of the state. Well, in my mind, so is Michael Moore, just not in the "we can get him in a court of law" kinda guilty.

[The WH]

I don't think Michael Moore hates america, I think he hates corporate greed and republicans.

I think Roger and Me was a wonderful film.