Ron Paul's 9 Ridiculous Questions Answered:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

No. Not everything about them. Should we begin to publish all troop movements, operations, schedules, etc..? This astoundingly stupid question implies, "Yes."

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

There are tens of thousands of junior enlisted people that have access to classified information. The military couldn't function otherwise. I had a TS/SCI clearance 9 months into my military career with access to information a lot more sensitive than what's been released so far. This shows an amazing lack of understanding on how the military works. Ron Paul should know better.

This is a glaring attempt to deflect from the real question: Why are Bradley Manning and Julian Assange such dickheads. These two are the problems in this equation. Not the fact that junior enlisted people have access to classified information. This is simply a variation of, "She deserved to be raped. Did you see how she was dressed?"

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

The government (in this case the military) can't always control what an individual does. I'm sure the Army used due diligence in granting a security clearance to Manning. Sometimes people do stupid things despite someone else's best efforts to stop them. One could say the same thing about the Ft Hood shooter. Why didn't the government protect the people that were killed?

Another lame-assed attempt at deflecting attention from the real criminals. Ron Paul should be ashamed for even asking this.

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

I'd say on balance, yes. Could it be better? Probably. I'd rather spend $80B per year on our current intelligence gathering system than $700B on ineffective stimulus plans.

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Back to the old "Bush lied, people died." What a douchebag. There were numerous other violations of UN sanctions that precipitated the war. It was not just about WMDs. Jesus...and Ron Paul probably sits up at night and wonders why more people don't take him seriously.

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Assange knew the information was classified and he knew he was not authorized to possess that information. He knew the information was illegally obtained by Manning. Let me ask you this: Next time someone comes to you and says, "Hey. I just stole Top Secret documents from the local military installation. You want them?", and you say, "Hell, yeah. I'll publish them on my blog." And you do publish them on your blog. Have you committed a crime? You bet your ass you have. It's no different from knowingly buying a stolen gun.

It wasn't too long ago that our government took this shit seriously and wouldn't have hesitated in putting a rope around the necks of Assange and Manning. Ethel and Julius, anyone? (I know, I know...they went to the chair)

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Could it be that the average Joe thinks Assange and Manning are scumbags that should be hanged? Could it be that's the reason for the outrage? Could it be this is yet another attempt at deflection?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Treason: The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Bradley Manning may have committed treason and should suffer the consequences if he's found guilty.

Assange probably can't be tried for treason. He was certainly a conspirator, though, and committed other crimes. Espionage?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

That's not what we're talking about here and anyone with at least half a brain should be able to comprehend that.

We're talking about a person who's taken a sworn oath to protect and defend the country knowingly providing stolen, classified documents to unauthorized persons. We're talking about another person, basically an anarchist with an axe to grind against the US, knowingly publishing in a public arena documents that he knew were stolen and he knew he wasn't authorized to possess. They both knew these documents would prove harmful to the government of the United States and to soldiers in harm's way.

If that's the best Ron Paul can do, fuck him. Maybe he should stick to hanging out with the truthers.