Most of them will be summarily executed in a suitably *BLAM*-tastic fashion.

But death by irony just seems so much more amusing.

No. The operatives agreed to be placed into danger and harms way when they signed up to be hired killers for their government. They are in a place they shouldn't be, doing things they shouldn't be doing. Make no mistake, the U.S is only out for their own interests in the region. The Taliban is a very convenient reason to stay and be active in the country, though if the Taliban were to disband tomorrow, that would be great news for the families of the soldiers, but horrible news for the U.S government agencies involved. In all likelihood though, they would probably fund the 'other side' to continue the fight, as they have done before in places like Lebanon. It would not be surprising in the slightest if the U.S was covertly supporting and bolstering the Taliban (in fact I'd be surprised if they weren't), similar to how they created Saddam and Osama as we know them.

The strategy is always the same one, cause and/or support dissent, malcontent and unrest by placing focus on rival interests, racial and religious differences, and old feuds to cause revolts, political uprisings, insurgency, and civil and international war. Then they bring their military and/or politicians into the fray with the pretense of aiding that country, and take by force and extortion whatever boon or piece of chocolate they had their eyes on. In other words, divide and conquer.

Prevention is better than cure as they say, and if these leaked documents can be a step towards preventing or reducing these kinds of occurences by placing less trust in governments, making them more accountable, and forcing them to be more transparent, then we would all be placing less of our fellow humans in danger.

The U.S is already trying to have Julian assassinated, or failing that, discredited with that ridiculous rape charge that even the women involved are denying. The problem with those types of public charges is that they don't have to stick, and the damage is already done. So in effect, he's guilty whether or not he's proven innocent.

The Russians might also try to assassinate Julian, and they may or may not be successful (though I hope not). The previous president of Syria had countless assassinations attempted against him over a span of 30 years, but in the end died of natural causes. The point there being, it's never a sure thing, and you don't go until it's your time to.

The fact that Julian Assange is willing to risk his own life and his freedom, safety and security to publish these documents shows a lot of character. I have heard it suggested that his motive is financial, and that I find preposterous.

The fact remains that if the U.S government agencies kept their murderous hands out of the region, the Afghan civilians would be better off and safer for it. What I don't understand is, why and how are so many people in this world so against the uncovering of this corruption and bloody murder that is occuring on a worldwide scale? How can you condemn Julian Assange for allegedly placing people in danger by leaking the documents that were given to him, but not in the same breath speak to the danger the entire world is being placed in by all these reckless dealings that are being uncovered?

You know why I can do that? Because of the fact that what Assange is doing is illegal. He's leaking classified documents. That pertain to current events.

That and that alone is illegal, at least in the US. Pretty much everything else is irrelevant in that respect. Because he's broken the law, and leaked classified documents.

I personally am waiting for the day when the news headlines say "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange discovered dead".

Assange may or may not be in it for the money. I personally consider his motives to be irrelevant, only his actions matter at this point. And those actions, to me, show a blatant disregard for the laws of powerful nations, several of which are perfectly happy to send one or two people to kill him. IMO, he's one of those people who thinks that, for some reason or other, they are above the law, and can do whatever the hell they want.

As for the whole "murderous US government agencies", I'm guessing you're either-

1. Not American OR

2. An American citizen who likes to bitch about current American policy because you think that the whole world can hold hands and work everything out with words.

Neither of them makes me consider your opinion to be particularly pertinent.

EDIT: I meant to add this but forgot.

One of my other problems with Assange is the fact that he's Australian. I've got nothing against other nationalities; it's just that since he's Australian, why the hell should he give a shit about anything going on with the American public, and what they do or do not know?

It simply further reinforces my belief that he's only doing this because he can, and the excuses he's drummed up let him make it look like anyone trying to stop him is an opponent of freedoms.

Still, once he releases something on Russia or China (or some similarly powerful and ruthless nation), he's screwed.

EDIT 2: I'd like to see your proof that the US has already attempted to assassinate Assange. As to the rape charges, he's admitted that he didn't use a condom when he had sex with one of the women in question. Which can qualify as rape in Sweden.

You've made one thing clear to me that pretty much settles the entire discussion. You aren't interested in the moral or ethical side of this. What Julian did is technically illegal, and so (to you apparently) that trumps all the disgusting corruption that was uncovered, and all the callous, immoral and reckless activities of the U.S government, and all the humiliation, rights deprivation, torture and death they have been party to. Of course, this is the same government that made the law which says that you're not allowed to expose their filth. Brilliant.

But at the same time, as you say, Julian is not a U.S citizen. So should the laws of the U.S be applicable to anyone anywhere? To your mind, this one breach of law has justified the murder of a non-U.S citizen for the breaking of a U.S law whilst not in the U.S.

As for why should any non-American care? Because what is occurring on a global scale is leaving no country unaffected. If you live on this planet and don't give a shit, then you're not in a position of entitlement to complain when the shit hits your personal fan and splatters in your face.

If sex without a condom is considered rape in Sweden (I'm assuming it only applies to non-married couples, as otherwise where would babies come from?), then the word loses all meaning. You could say that sex without a condom is illegal, but to call it rape is just stupid. The only real advantage to calling it rape is in the negative stigma associated with that word. This is only advantageous to those would seek to discredit Julian. Most people (even Swedish people) wouldn't really think less of the guy if they found out he had sex without a condom. Once again, this is a perfect example of the U.S using it's influence in the media to villainize and discredit.

At any rate, if you don't care about or don't mind the corruption and murder that has resulted from the actions of the U.S government agencies, and that has been to some extent uncovered by these leaks, and if you only care that a law that protects these types of actions was possibly broken, then there is really no sense in taking this discussion any further.

US laws should be applicable to him because it is the US that he is compromising. Anyways, the reason I consider him dying perfectly acceptable is because if I was running a country and he leaked classified documents of any kind about my country, well that constitutes a threat to national security. Killing him would be the most efficient means of dealing with said threat.

Of course, I do think that the definition of rape by Swedish law is absolutely ridiculous; and I personally think it's rather ridiculous that the media is focusing on that. Mostly of course, because I think his site is absolutely a threat to the security of any nation.

If these leaks are compromising the security of the U.S and other nations, it is due to the types of dealings going on. As such, it would be more justified to take issue with the policies and practices of the U.S and some of these nations, than to support a witch hunt against the ones blowing the whistle on these injustices. In other words, look to the root causes before you consider what is just an inevitable effect.

If there was not these deceitful, double standard, and violent policies being enacted, then firstly, no one would bother to try and leak any confidential documents to Julian, secondly, Julian probably wouldn't bother publishing them anyway, as there wouldn't really be a need to create awareness, and thirdly, even if he did publish them, it wouldn't be nearly as controversial as it is now, and, while being a serious security breach, it probably would have been a quickly forgotten footnote in the media compared to the attention it is receiving now.

In a general sense, I can understand and agree to a certain degree of confidentiality in dealings between nations. But with the stakes being what they are, and with the global state of affairs, tensions, wars, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, it is completely irresponsible to place any more trust in these governments, and to allow them to continue with these inexcusable actions without speaking out against them, and showing the world what is really going on. There will always be a price to pay, but never more than the cost of turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, and keeping silent about injustice.

The problem is, what constitutes a "war crime" and a "crime against humanity".

Because, to tell you the truth, I really see nothing about war that could be called a war crime. Whether the application of debilitating torture techniques on POWs, chemical warfare, or even nuclear weapons deployment, none of it is nice.

The problem with the idea of war crimes is that somewhere along the line, people decided that there should be some kind of honorable action in war. War itself is a nasty business. The reasons and motivations for warfare can very well be honorable, but the action(s) of warfare are not pretty, and they never will be.

You have a point. Resistance to invasion and occupation, and defending your country, people and rights are all honorable reasons for fighting and killing when you have to. But as the saying goes, war is hell.

What he said.

And war as a means of propaganda, which it most certainly has been in modern times, is terrorism.  The US has not engaged in a true war since the Civil War.

BTW I think this a great topic of discussion for supposed "Pearl Harbor Day."  Just another false flag op by the good old US of A.

Which means that defining a "war crime" is impossible. As a result your argument on based on the crimes of the US in wartime completely falls apart.

You do realize that WWI and WWII DID HAPPEN, and at the very least WWII WASN'T propaganda.

Again, just words. The focus should be on the meaning. The U.S government takes part in unjustified killing, torture, rights deprivation, etc., or if you like, a whole bunch of very bad naughty things that they don't actually need to do to protect their country. In actuality, the actions of the government tends to create ever increasing animosity against them, fueling the fires of hate, vengeance and terrorism, thereby placing their soldiers, people and country in dangers of their own making. The wars themselves are unjustified, and so all actions in said wars are a crime.

Even if the initiation of a war is justified, there is still such a thing as excess or unnecessary violence and killing. The Iraq war is a good example of soldiers and operatives doing things that are well outside the parameters of what they are allegedly there for. There is just so much unnecessary evil that the U.S government is partisan to, that to defend their actions as a whole and to defend the confidentiality of their indiscretions becomes a very dangerous form of extremism.

Actually, war crimes are quite clearly defined in the Geneva Conventions.

As a snippit:

The stipulation for the Geneva Conventions to apply is that at least one of the warring countries (an actual declaration of war is not required) needs to have ratified the treaty. Which the US has.

You bring a very good point that I would like to bring up. There are justified wars, unjustified wars, formally declared wars, and informally declared wars. But in the end wouldn't you say it doesn't really matter? It's all wrong? Whether a war is justified or not, war is war. You can have a completely justified war where two nations are using chemical weapons and radioactive armaments, and you can have an unjustified war where two nations are using conventional equipment to achieve their goals. War is wrong, not matter how you look at it. The scale of it as well can be incomprehensible. While I do agree that the validity of wars should be present, it really matters nil to the big equation. War is always wrong. "If war breaks out, then both parties are at fault." (though obviously this is not always the case) 

Except that war isn't wrong. Warfare is sometimes the only way to solve a problem. Do you really think that Britain could have talked it's way out of a war with Germany in the 1940s? Because I know they couldn't have.

And I really couldn't care less what the Geneva Conventions say because they'd obstruct my deployment of chemical and nuclear ordnance. To tell truth, any country I'd run would be constantly flipping the bird at the Geneva Convention. And I personally think no one would do a damn thing about it because they'd be too scared of the consequences.

There's a difference between something that's right and something wrong. I find it hard to believe that you would say that war is not wrong. The truth is war is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary. I have no problem going to war; it's human nature and sometimes is the only course of action available. But i'm also aware that it's never right. But just because a war is wrong, doesn't mean it can't be just.

About the Geneva Convention; when or if a large-scale war breaks out between major powers i'll be very surprised if any of the nations involved actually follow those rules.