Amicus: Sarah Palin linked to an article that asked "Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange?".

If the article was calling for Assange's arrest and trial it would have said that. It does not.
Snatch is an interesting term to use instead of "arrest", since it includes the kinds of secret abduction that the US agencies' "various assets" routinely engage in. And what is "neutralise" if not a euphemism for murder? If you don't want to be treated like a Bond villain, then don't talk like one.

OK, a link is not endorsement in itself. But it seems a lot like endorsement when it is accompanied by these words from Palin herself: "He is not a journalist ... He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands", and "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

It's disingenuous to interpret these statements as anything other than calls for Assange to be treated as an enemy combatant subject to arbitrary execution at any time.

I appreciate your point, pelican, and knew when I made the bank statement analogy that I was wide open for rebuttal. Thanks for making the rebuttal courteously.

I guess my point (or, rather, question) is an ethical one: if I come into possession of information that does not belong to me, was not intended for the public eye and may harm another person physically, emotionally or in any other way, do I have a right/responsibility to do anything with that information? I suspect that we are approaching this matter from different ideological stances - I do not believe that the common man, sitting in his study anywhere in the world, should have unlimited access to whatever information he can find. I am content with the knowledge that governments have secrets, and don't want to know what those secrets are (with some exceptions). While I can see some nobility in some of the information released, I see senselessness in other cases.

That said, what the naysayers and those damaged by the information should be asking is this: what has led those people with access to classified information to leak it? What are they doing wrong that even those intimately involved in the dealings of governments, multinationals and other organisations are so disenchanted that they are willing to risk their own personal safety and security to make the information public, either for the common good or simply to hurt their organisational leaders? Moral or otherwise, the Wikileaks story should serve as a wake-up call to those who are hurt by it.

@ Amicus, here are some sources. We all know that when the US forces are asked to pursue al Quaida, it means to eliminate them.

I have not slandered Sarah Palin. She is pro-execution. If you are so concerned about her reputation, give her a call and let her know what I have said.

The Vancouver Sun: December 8, 2010.
Tweed Shire Echo: December 9, 2010.

The Guardian: December 8, 2010. From an interview with Senator Joe Lieberman where he is quoted as saying: "Sarah Palin has called for Assange and allies to be "pursued" like al-Qaida and the Taliban".

Networkworld.com/news: December 2, 2010.

"Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."

Washington Post: November 29, 2010.
"Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

innocent or guilty Assange has not proven to be the Messiah that many make him out to be.

I don't think anybody really thinks Julian Assange is any kind of Messiah, Runner, but perhaps a little bit like Jesus in that he's not a god, but simply a rabble-rouser. A nice one, but a rabble-rouser none the less!

As for Sweden's sex laws, I have it on good authority from an ex-Swedish National that there are many men rotting in Sweden's jails for having sex in an "unlawful" way. Apparently that country's sex laws are weird in the extreme.

Still, I do agree with the law and the law (however flawed) should be allowed to work, but at the first sign of US Government interference, I'd be very disappointed if the Gillard Government didn't intervene, but having read about Gillard's current stance against Assange, I suppose I'll be bitterly disapointed.

By the way, I haven't heard much from the "mad monk' on the matter either. Come on Tony. I need someone else to vote for once this mob is tipped out of power!

ah proscience, that's usual for a hysterical serial exaggerator .. so we've gone from Sarah Palin calling for Assange to be killed, to "She is pro-execution"

haha .. US haters all fall into the same unthinking manner, right up till they get called out and then have to back up and make scrappy excuses.

Why would I call Palin?

I asked if you had slandered her, she gets left wing nuts all the time accusing her of saying things she never said, thanks for reinforcing the model.