Jullian Assange ARRESTED IN LONDON
all i can say is.....GO 4CHAN!
I just don't understand what people see in this man.
He is someone using the guise of a foreign country's first amendment to achieve his goal of "embarrassing" (his words) that country's government, which has been doing in private pretty much what they've been claiming to do public. I challenge someone to point out one tangibly positive result of his laissez-faire attitude toward sensitive information.
They can't. In fact, I'd be willing to lay down money that if trends hold, at least one of his supporters will just respond to this post with some sort of personal insult without in any way contributing anything to this discussion or responding to my point.
I dont have a problem with some of the stuff they release, like most of the US cables, but when you're releasing things that are going to put people in danger then i think you're crossing a line. Also pisses me off how he comes out and says "oh nothing we're releasing can result in anyone getting hurt".bullshit. Some of the stuff could easily end up in conflict on some level. Other thing is how a ton of people are all "OMG TEH GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO US"!!! If you're honestly shocked that your government hasn't been telling you every little detail of its foreign policy then you are disgustingly naive. Governments do not share all their details for very good reasons. In the end the guy i feel sorry for is the Private who sent all this stuff to Wikileaks, 57 years in prison is a long time for anyone, let alone someone in their 20's.
" I just don't understand what people see in this man.
He is someone using the guise of a foreign country's first amendment to achieve his goal of "embarrassing" (his words) that country's government, which has been doing in private pretty much what they've been claiming to do public. I challenge someone to point out one tangibly positive result of his laissez-faire attitude toward sensitive information.
"They can't. In fact, I'd be willing to lay down money that if trends hold, at least one of his supporters will just respond to this post with some sort of personal insult without in any way contributing anything to this discussion or responding to my point.
It is forcing said countries to be held accountable for their actions and behaviour behind closed doors - a similar thing happened over here with MP's expenses - it showed them to be abusing the expenses system.
There hasn't been (so far). All those documents seem to contain is either Americans working to further the publicly stated goals of America's administration at the time or conversations/discussions/observations with/of/ or about other countries.
" @hunkaburningluv: But who can name one action the US has taken behind closed doors (that the documents have revealed) anywhere near the corruption brought to light by the MP scandal? There hasn't been (so far). All those documents seem to contain is either Americans working to further the publicly stated goals of America's administration at the time or conversations/discussions/observations with/of/ or about other countries. "Furthering said goals by thieving secrets and personal information from international diplomats who visit the US? That's illegal and contravenes fundamental legal principles of America, let alone those as laid out by the Geneva Convention.
What about Sweden being a silent part of NATO and yet not having any oversight at all?
Try actually reading the documents before you comment. Your ignorance doesn't excuse your bluster.
I've already ordered my Assange-Guevara t-shirt.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE
" @JakJ said:
" @hunkaburningluv: But who can name one action the US has taken behind closed doors (that the documents have revealed) anywhere near the corruption brought to light by the MP scandal? There hasn't been (so far). All those documents seem to contain is either Americans working to further the publicly stated goals of America's administration at the time or conversations/discussions/observations with/of/ or about other countries. "Furthering said goals by thieving secrets and personal information from international diplomats who visit the US? That's illegal and contravenes fundamental legal principles of America, let alone those as laid out by the Geneva Convention. What about Sweden being a silent part of NATO and yet not having any oversight at all? Try actually reading the documents before you comment. Your ignorance doesn't excuse your bluster. "
Does it though?
this is form the BBC website:
"No single US law makes it a crime specifically to disclose classified government documents, but legal experts say the government would most likely prosecute under the Espionage Act of 1917, although Mr Holder cited "other tools at our disposal".
Under the Espionage Act, prosecutors would have to prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security, or show he had a hand in improperly obtaining them from the government.
"That act is a difficult act to prosecute people under, especially someone who might be considered a journalist, as he would argue he is," said Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law.
In only one known instance has the US prosecuted for espionage individuals who were neither in a position of trust with the government nor agents of a foreign power. That effort ended in failure.
In 2005, two pro-Israel lobbyists associated with Aipac, an Israeli interest group, were indicted and accused of obtaining government information and spreading it to colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats. But prosecutors dropped the charges after a judge ruled they would have to prove the pair knew distributing the information would hurt the US."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817
So in fact there is no actual US law that prevent the publication of these leaks. Not only that, but he's a journalist, someone who is completely covered by the freedom of speech laws that the US so proudly loves.
So rather than attack blindly claiming someone is ignorant of the facts, be prepared to have a fair bit of egg on your face when they show that they do.........
" I just don't understand what people see in this man.You're absolutely correct. Some of the supporters are angry at the American government or America in general. Others support subversiveness for the sake of subversiveness because they lack real understanding of their real problems. They're all rebels without a cause. They don't understand to real issues of the world, and surprise surprise you're already facing strawman attacks because they know they don't have a foot to stand on. There hasn't been a single rational argument in this entire thread in favor of these particular leaks.
He is someone using the guise of a foreign country's first amendment to achieve his goal of "embarrassing" (his words) that country's government, which has been doing in private pretty much what they've been claiming to do public. I challenge someone to point out one tangibly positive result of his laissez-faire attitude toward sensitive information.
"They can't. In fact, I'd be willing to lay down money that if trends hold, at least one of his supporters will just respond to this post with some sort of personal insult without in any way contributing anything to this discussion or responding to my point.
Nothing that came out of the state department leaks has been surprising or will change the balance of the world one bit. Government transparency is great and governments should be held accountable for their actions, but this entire fiasco has been a joke from the start. Wikileaks doesn't want transparency or freedom, they either want popularity and power or they want anarchy.
@SeriouslyNow: The trend will continue...
" @JakJ said:Wow. Stick and stones attacks. That's great. You really don't know what you're talking about. There's the potential for real good here, and that should be supported. Rational arguments in support of the leaks? We now know that Abu Ghraib was happening all over the country, and we were turning a blind eye to it. We now know that the government is willing to hide a potential atomic disaster from the public view, as they did last year with the rouge uranium shipment. This has been surprising, and you're ridiculous to say it wasn't. Changing the balance of the world, maybe not. But more knowledge means we can better hold our leaders accountable." I just don't understand what people see in this man.You're absolutely correct. Some of the supporters are angry at the American government or America in general. Others support subversiveness for the sake of subversiveness because they lack real understanding of their real problems. They're all rebels without a cause. They don't understand to real issues of the world, and surprise surprise you're already facing strawman attacks because they know they don't have a foot to stand on. There hasn't been a single rational argument in this entire thread in favor of these particular leaks. Nothing that came out of the state department leaks has been surprising or will change the balance of the world one bit. Government transparency is great and governments should be held accountable for their actions, but this entire fiasco has been a joke from the start. Wikileaks doesn't want transparency or freedom, they either want popularity and power or they want anarchy. "
He is someone using the guise of a foreign country's first amendment to achieve his goal of "embarrassing" (his words) that country's government, which has been doing in private pretty much what they've been claiming to do public. I challenge someone to point out one tangibly positive result of his laissez-faire attitude toward sensitive information.
"They can't. In fact, I'd be willing to lay down money that if trends hold, at least one of his supporters will just respond to this post with some sort of personal insult without in any way contributing anything to this discussion or responding to my point.
I'm not supporting Assange blindly. I think he really needs to publicly articulate what he sees his responsibilities here as being. The "target list" cable is not ok. But as for what Wikileaks wants, you are making your own strawman if you believe they want anything but transparency. They don't produce this information. They just leak it. The question, the reasonable strawman free question becomes, what is the effect of transparency. And there you can't have it both ways. The effects of the leaks cannot both be anarchy and not surprising or changing the balance of the world one bit. You have to pick one.
@Diamond: Because the US admitting that Iraq had no evidence for al-qaeda in the cables but going ahead with an unjust war isn't worth talking about right?This was already known before the leaked cables. Does it suggest that the US gov't viewed the war in Iraq as an unjust war? Did the US government go in with intentions of committing atrocities? That would be information worth leaking...
@Detrian said:
" In this thread: People literally defending the government for keeping things like child rape and labor, murder, civilian deaths, torture, wiretapping and friendly fire incidents secret.In this thread: People defending their weak arguments with hyperbole, lies, and ad hominem attacks. Exactly how many cases of child rape were revealed for the first time in these state department leaks?
@Ragdrazi said:
Wow. Stick and stones attacks. That's great. You really don't know what you're talking about. There's the potential for real good here, and that should be supported. Rational arguments in support of the leaks? We now know that Abu Ghraib was happening all over the country, and we were turning a blind eye to it. We now know that the government is willing to hide a potential atomic disaster from the public view, as they did last year with the rouge uranium shipment. This has been surprising, and you're ridiculous to say it wasn't. Changing the balance of the world, maybe not. But more knowledge means we can better hold our leaders accountable. I'm not supporting Assange blindly. I think he really needs to publicly articulate what he sees his responsibilities here as being. The "target list" cable is not ok. But as for what Wikileaks wants, you are making your own strawman if you believe they want anything but transparency. They don't produce this information. They just leak it. The question, the reasonable strawman free question becomes, what is the effect of transparency. And there you can't have it both ways. The effects of the leaks cannot both be anarchy and not surprising or changing the balance of the world one bit. You have to pick one. "I was simply explaining to JakJ why we have so many ignorant angsty people supporting Wikileaks as they are. I absolutely agree there's a potential for real good in Wikileaks, but these recent leaks have been a joke and have only served to weaken Wikileak's position in terms of government transparency. What would this knowledge of potential war crimes in Iraq do? Seriously, what can this change? What purpose does the knowledge of rouge fissile materials serve to the public? There may be specific new examples, but everyone's known about specific examples before and many of those were exposed to a much greater extent. There's lots of missing materials that could be used for nuclear weapons. This hasn't been surprising and you're ridiculous to say it was.
I am seeing less and less evidence that Wikileaks actually wants transparency. Why do they hold on to information to make a media event out of it? Why do they leak so much information which will only endanger additional lives and doesn't serve to help their stated purpose one bit? I see the real effect of these leaks as being internet censorship and the further endangering of free speech through a wasteful and arrogant series of indiscretions.
" I've already ordered my Assange-Guevara t-shirt. "That sad thing is that those probably exist somewhere.
I was simply explaining to JakJ why we have so many ignorant angsty people supporting Wikileaks as they are. I absolutely agree there's a potential for real good in Wikileaks, but these recent leaks have been a joke and have only served to weaken Wikileak's position in terms of government transparency. What would this knowledge of potential war crimes in Iraq do? Seriously, what can this change? What purpose does the knowledge of rouge fissile materials serve to the public? There may be specific new examples, but everyone's known about specific examples before and many of those were exposed to a much greater extent. There's lots of missing materials that could be used for nuclear weapons. This hasn't been surprising and you're ridiculous to say it was. I am seeing less and less evidence that Wikileaks actually wants transparency. Why do they hold on to information to make a media event out of it? Why do they leak so much information which will only endanger additional lives and doesn't serve to help their stated purpose one bit? I see the real effect of these leaks as being internet censorship and the further endangering of free speech through a wasteful and arrogant series of indiscretions. "
There are ignorant and angsty people everywhere supporting everything. But what do these cables do? Two things. They let people be held accountable, and they have a cumulative effect. They cannot hide that they covered up their knowledge. And when they do it again, they wont be able to deny that they covered up their knowledge. If Wikileaks keeps operating, they will eventually be forced to stop covering up their knowledge of what they've done. And when they do that, they put themselves up to the accountability of the people. That there was a rouge uranium shipment that could have killed a lot of people that they were willing to cover up is completely shocking and your absurd to even suggest it's not. People could have died and they never would have known why.
As for making media events, by definition, they must make leaks a media event because leaking has a media component. As for endangering lives, there is one and only one leak you can say has done that.
I am really starting to think your rage over this issue has more to do with something going on with you. Your own angst. You seem to be very personally involved in this and I'd like to know why that is.
my x-men powers allow me to instantly and accurately determine the motives behind everyones thoughts and opinions. clearly, i only use this power for good.
whoops, don't mind me. i just about call wikileaks supporters angsty children before i unironically accuse my opponents of ad hominem attacks. i kinda totally aced my debate 101 class at the local community college, in case you haven't noticed.
Who specifically is going to be held accountable and by what means? I don't have anything against the leaking of potential war crimes by any nation, but very very few have ever been held accountable for war crimes historically. Furthermore as much as I believe Wikileaks only has legitimate leaked information, I don't believe any of it would ever stand in a court of law as evidence against the outed individual in a Western nation. They cannot hide Wikileaks information but they can deny and simply avoid repercussions.But what do these cables do? Two things. They let people be held accountable, and they have a cumulative effect. They cannot hide that they covered up their knowledge. And when they do it again, they wont be able to deny that they covered up their knowledge. If Wikileaks keeps operating, they will eventually be forced to stop covering up their knowledge of what they've done. And when they do that, they put themselves up to the accountability of the people. That there was a rouge uranium shipment that could have killed a lot of people that they were willing to cover up is completely shocking and your absurd to even suggest it's not. People could have died and they never would have known why. As for making media events, by definition, they must make leaks a media event because leaking has a media component. As for endangering lives, there is one and only one leak you can say has done that. I am really starting to think your rage over this issue has more to do with something going on with you. Your own angst. You seem to be very personally involved in this and I'd like to know why that is. "
Haven't you heard of other lost or irresponsibly shipped nuclear materials in the past? This isn't the first incident, and probably isn't even the hundredth or thousandth. There have been planes with equally dangerous materials that were transported improperly in the past. Materials have been lost (there is even a fair amount of public information about this). Had the disaster occurred of course we would have known why, you can't have hundreds of people dying of radiation sickness and noone know why. Do you have a link to this specific uranium document you've brought up, because I haven't seen one unexpected thing out of that entire particular leak. What I've heard about it doesn't shock me one bit and the only reason I can imagine it shocking you is because you haven't been paying attention. Maybe that's the greatest purpose Wikileaks will serve, to get the attention of a few more people that were willfully ignorant in the past.
As far as endangering lives there is the targets leak but there is also a massive amount of information on defectors. Even the leaks that may destabilize regions such as the Middle East, what with the views other nations have expressed with the US in secret about Iran.
I am personally fed up with people being ignorant about this issue and many others. People that are willing to dismiss the necessities of state secrets and endanger lives for no real cause at all. It is foolish and irresponsible. Things must be done for a reason, and I view this whole situation as wholly harmful to everyone but anarchists. Governments will suppress information more, Republicans will crack down on freedoms, Wikileaks and its supporters may suffer in the courts, Americans may suffer from attacks, individuals internationally may be persecuted for supporting the US in secret, and these leaks may even bring the world closer to wars. And not a single person will be held accountable in any meaningful way.
@Doctorchimp said:
The support of the Saudi government and support from within Saudi Arabia for terrorism are completely different factors. It's the same with Pakistan, and you don't need Wikileaks to support that statement, take it from me. You realize if the US dropped support for those countries, terrorist groups and other powers would gladly step in, right?@Diamond: Considering that the US talks about guaranteeing Saudi Arabia's government and protection when there's evidence in the wikileaks that Saudi Arabia is the main financier of Al-Qaeda....yes to all of your questions... "
@actionTACO said:
" my x-men powers allow me to instantly and accurately determine the motives behind everyones thoughts and opinions. clearly, i only use this power for good. "
@actionTACO said:
I don't need superpowers to see the motives behind children like you. I simply need a brain." whoops, don't mind me. i just about call wikileaks supporters angsty children before i unironically accuse my opponents of ad hominem attacks. i kinda totally aced my debate 101 class at the local community college, in case you haven't noticed. "
Telling people why someone as childish as yourself acts the way you do is different than attacking the person to disprove their statements, which you just did. There was no content to what you just said, you simply attacked me because I disagreed with you and you don't know enough about the discussion to form any kind of coherent rebuttal. I think you need to go back to your elementary school debate class, because my offhand knowledge of debate is winning out.
Here have fun
@Detrian said:" In this thread: People literally defending the government for keeping things like child rape and labor, murder, civilian deaths, torture, wiretapping and friendly fire incidents secret.In this thread: People defending their weak arguments with hyperbole, lies, and ad hominem attacks. Exactly how many cases of child rape were revealed for the first time in these state department leaks?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
Touche. However, that is Afghanistan. Maybe you think we should nuke the whole country, as they we are morally opposed to their beliefs and practices?Here have fun http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
"There is a long tradition of young boys dressing up as girls and dancing for men in Afghanistan, an activity that sometimes crosses the line into child abuse with Afghans keeping boys as possessions"
Sick, but again, who didn't know this already? I'm willing to bet you were one of them. Maybe if the US government had paid for the 'dancing boys' itself...
By the way it wasn't just middle eastern crazy rich guys that funded Al-Qaeda, militants were settings up fronts to launder money from the government...while Saudi Arabia was digging their heels in the ground.
Remember America was quick to point fingers and complain about Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet when it comes to the oil rich countries officials just save it for closed doors.
" @Detrian said:If anything and according to your retarded logic I would be up for nuking america, seeing how it was members of an american PMC that hired the boys.Touche. However, that is Afghanistan. Maybe you think we should nuke the whole country, as they we are morally opposed to their beliefs and practices?Here have fun http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
"There is a long tradition of young boys dressing up as girls and dancing for men in Afghanistan, an activity that sometimes crosses the line into child abuse with Afghans keeping boys as possessions" Sick, but again, who didn't know this already? I'm willing to bet you were one of them. "
@Detrian said:
If anything and according to your retarded logic I would be up for nuking america, seeing how it was members of an american PMC that hired the boys.Except no force within the US or US gov't actually wants Afghanis to use children for sexual purposes, that desire came from Afghanis... All you know is you're angry with America and you want to see innocent Americans suffer.
" @Doctorchimp: Well I'll give you credit for that. I will concede that Pakistan and Afghanistan may be able to pressure the US on an international scale to reduce its reliance on those countries for internal anti-terrorism efforts.Hilarious.
@Detrian said:If anything and according to your retarded logic I would be up for nuking america, seeing how it was members of an american PMC that hired the boys.Except no force within the US or US gov't actually wants Afghanis to use children for sexual purposes, that desire came from Afghanis... All you know is you're angry with America and you want to see innocent Americans suffer. "
Hilarious.It would be if it weren't true. Do you live in Qatar? Maybe to knock some sense into you, I do feel Islam is persecuted. I feel the US has been largely destructive in the Middle East because of the support of Israel because of their commercial interests in the US. However, this blind hatred of the US will get you nowhere. I am not proud of many of the things my country has done, and a good half of Americans probably aren't especially happy either. However, it isn't even US PMCs that want to have sex with little boys, it's the individuals the PMC hired them for. PMCs exist only for profit as with any other corporation and as they deal mostly in death, there's hardly anything more despicable in the world.
The truth is always in the middle. Extremism on both sides is always wrong. If it's one thing that irritates me on the internet in all things (from videogames fanboyism to political discussions) it's black and white thinking. People who think "us versus them" are one of the biggest problems with humanity.
" @Detrian said:That's even more hilarious how you mention going to the extreme just after saying I must somehow hate america or be a muslim for showing you that child rape was indeed in the cables. No wonder so many people are shouting about treason and the destruction of america, they are all clueless berks that don't even realize what they are doing.Hilarious.It would be if it weren't true. Do you live in Qatar? Maybe to knock some sense into you, I do feel Islam is persecuted. I feel the US has been largely destructive in the Middle East because of the support of Israel because of their commercial interests in the US. However, this blind hatred of the US will get you nowhere. I am not proud of many of the things my country has done, and a good half of Americans probably aren't especially happy either. However, it isn't even US PMCs that want to have sex with little boys, it's the individuals the PMC hired them for. PMCs exist only for profit as with any other corporation and as they deal mostly in death, there's hardly anything more despicable in the world. The truth is always in the middle. Extremism on both sides is always wrong. If it's one thing that irritates me on the internet in all things (from videogames fanboyism to political discussions) it's black and white thinking. People who think "us versus them" are one of the biggest problems with humanity. "
No I'm basing that on your every post on this forum. How you have always gone out of your way to attack America, and how you continue to do so. You have defended Islam (justifiably, I might add) on several occasions in several different threads. And that's why a debate such as this Wikileaks one cannot possibly work with someone like you. To be specific, you have labeled me your enemy, whatever your viewpoint is. You are an extremist even if you don't believe it yourself." @Diamond said:
" @Detrian said:That's even more hilarious how you mention going to the extreme just after saying I must somehow hate america or be a muslim for showing you that child rape was indeed in the cables. No wonder so many people are shouting about treason and the destruction of america, they are all clueless berks that don't even realize what they are doing. "Hilarious.It would be if it weren't true. Do you live in Qatar? Maybe to knock some sense into you, I do feel Islam is persecuted. I feel the US has been largely destructive in the Middle East because of the support of Israel because of their commercial interests in the US. However, this blind hatred of the US will get you nowhere. I am not proud of many of the things my country has done, and a good half of Americans probably aren't especially happy either. However, it isn't even US PMCs that want to have sex with little boys, it's the individuals the PMC hired them for. PMCs exist only for profit as with any other corporation and as they deal mostly in death, there's hardly anything more despicable in the world. The truth is always in the middle. Extremism on both sides is always wrong. If it's one thing that irritates me on the internet in all things (from videogames fanboyism to political discussions) it's black and white thinking. People who think "us versus them" are one of the biggest problems with humanity. "
" @Detrian said:WAT. This fervent nationalistic sentiment reminds me of something....OH YEAH, NAZIS.No I'm basing that on your every post on this forum. How you have always gone out of your way to attack America, and how you continue to do so. You have defended Islam (justifiably, I might add) on several occasions in several different threads. And that's why a debate such as this Wikileaks one cannot possibly work with someone like you. To be specific, you have labeled me your enemy, whatever your viewpoint is. You are an extremist even if you don't believe it yourself. "" @Diamond said:
" @Detrian said:That's even more hilarious how you mention going to the extreme just after saying I must somehow hate america or be a muslim for showing you that child rape was indeed in the cables. No wonder so many people are shouting about treason and the destruction of america, they are all clueless berks that don't even realize what they are doing. "Hilarious.It would be if it weren't true. Do you live in Qatar? Maybe to knock some sense into you, I do feel Islam is persecuted. I feel the US has been largely destructive in the Middle East because of the support of Israel because of their commercial interests in the US. However, this blind hatred of the US will get you nowhere. I am not proud of many of the things my country has done, and a good half of Americans probably aren't especially happy either. However, it isn't even US PMCs that want to have sex with little boys, it's the individuals the PMC hired them for. PMCs exist only for profit as with any other corporation and as they deal mostly in death, there's hardly anything more despicable in the world. The truth is always in the middle. Extremism on both sides is always wrong. If it's one thing that irritates me on the internet in all things (from videogames fanboyism to political discussions) it's black and white thinking. People who think "us versus them" are one of the biggest problems with humanity. "
" They will resurrect John Wilkes Booth so he can assassinate him. That's what happened to Tony Montana, Dumbledore, Tupac, Patrick Swayze and Bruce Lee. "
" @SeriouslyNow said:
" @JakJ said:
" @hunkaburningluv: But who can name one action the US has taken behind closed doors (that the documents have revealed) anywhere near the corruption brought to light by the MP scandal? There hasn't been (so far). All those documents seem to contain is either Americans working to further the publicly stated goals of America's administration at the time or conversations/discussions/observations with/of/ or about other countries. "Furthering said goals by thieving secrets and personal information from international diplomats who visit the US? That's illegal and contravenes fundamental legal principles of America, let alone those as laid out by the Geneva Convention. What about Sweden being a silent part of NATO and yet not having any oversight at all? Try actually reading the documents before you comment. Your ignorance doesn't excuse your bluster. "
Does it though?
this is form the BBC website:
"No single US law makes it a crime specifically to disclose classified government documents, but legal experts say the government would most likely prosecute under the Espionage Act of 1917, although Mr Holder cited "other tools at our disposal".
Under the Espionage Act, prosecutors would have to prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security, or show he had a hand in improperly obtaining them from the government.
"That act is a difficult act to prosecute people under, especially someone who might be considered a journalist, as he would argue he is," said Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law.
In only one known instance has the US prosecuted for espionage individuals who were neither in a position of trust with the government nor agents of a foreign power. That effort ended in failure.
In 2005, two pro-Israel lobbyists associated with Aipac, an Israeli interest group, were indicted and accused of obtaining government information and spreading it to colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats. But prosecutors dropped the charges after a judge ruled they would have to prove the pair knew distributing the information would hurt the US."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817 So in fact there is no actual US law that prevent the publication of these leaks. Not only that, but he's a journalist, someone who is completely covered by the freedom of speech laws that the US so proudly loves. So rather than attack blindly claiming someone is ignorant of the facts, be prepared to have a fair bit of egg on your face when they show that they do......... "
so no counter point?
"Who specifically is going to be held accountable and by what means? I don't have anything against the leaking of potential war crimes by any nation, but very very few have ever been held accountable for war crimes historically. Furthermore as much as I believe Wikileaks only has legitimate leaked information, I don't believe any of it would ever stand in a court of law as evidence against the outed individual in a Western nation. They cannot hide Wikileaks information but they can deny and simply avoid repercussions.Your response snake is eating too many apples.
Haven't you heard of other lost or irresponsibly shipped nuclear materials in the past? This isn't the first incident, and probably isn't even the hundredth or thousandth. There have been planes with equally dangerous materials that were transported improperly in the past. Materials have been lost (there is even a fair amount of public information about this). Had the disaster occurred of course we would have known why, you can't have hundreds of people dying of radiation sickness and noone know why. Do you have a link to this specific uranium document you've brought up, because I haven't seen one unexpected thing out of that entire particular leak. What I've heard about it doesn't shock me one bit and the only reason I can imagine it shocking you is because you haven't been paying attention. Maybe that's the greatest purpose Wikileaks will serve, to get the attention of a few more people that were willfully ignorant in the past.
As far as endangering lives there is the targets leak but there is also a massive amount of information on defectors. Even the leaks that may destabilize regions such as the Middle East, what with the views other nations have expressed with the US in secret about Iran.
I am personally fed up with people being ignorant about this issue and many others. People that are willing to dismiss the necessities of state secrets and endanger lives for no real cause at all. It is foolish and irresponsible. Things must be done for a reason, and I view this whole situation as wholly harmful to everyone but anarchists. Governments will suppress information more, Republicans will crack down on freedoms, Wikileaks and its supporters may suffer in the courts, Americans may suffer from attacks, individuals internationally may be persecuted for supporting the US in secret, and these leaks may even bring the world closer to wars. And not a single person will be held accountable in any meaningful way.
Well, the general command can be held liable for the practice of looking the other way on torture and rape. But you are correct. People can be held accountable, but often aren't. But the thing that insures they often aren't is the fact that information isn't brought to light, or isn't brought to light until it it well past time anything can be done about it. This is not such an instance. Now the US isn't inclined to move on this. But there's the cumulative effect. If enough information is continuously brought to light, the will be forced to change the way they operate, unless they want to endure damaging scandal after damaging scandal.
Leaked information can be used in a court of law, and often has been before. The evidence against them are easily verifiable documents. There is no way they can deny and avoid repercussions. And I'm confused as to why you would even think that they could. Seriously, don't you think they would have already denied the evidence if that was anything like a possibility for them?
Covering up the possibility of a massive disaster is as sure a way of getting people killed as putting a bullet in them. Now, we are right, I think, in condemning the "list" leak as potentially getting people killed. But why are you so willing to ignore what the government has done here? You need to knock off the "willful ignorance" bullshit. Because to attack Assange and say that this information is not condemning of the government is to act like a petulant little child.
The Iran cable is to complicated a situation to view in the black and white terms you are doing. There is no way of telling exactly how that situation is going to play out, and the effects could easily be quite positive. Iran is not about to attack an Arab brother nation, which opens a real door for diplomacy on this issue. Finally.
And I am personally fed up with your useless baseless attacking of everyone else on this thread. Correct my "willful ignorance," but you seem to have simply missed that I personally now have problems supporting Assange after the "list" leak. I personally see the need for state secrets that protect lives. I do not see the need for secrets that hide immediate dangers from the public or mass atrocities.
And you really need to stop using the word "anarchists." As a self discribed Anarchist myself, I can tell you, you have no idea what you're talking about. It'd suggest starting with the works of Bakunin.
As for all the negatives you point to, I cannot disagree with you in that those are all potential outcomes. And some of them are highly potential. Most are not. Meanwhile, the potental goods are quite certainly going to happen.
I asked you once, I'll ask you again. What is making this issue so personal for you. Why constantly overblow the potential ills and ignore the plethora of good. Why do you keep repeating yourself of this thread. What is your problem, son! What is your problem.
It seems like overzealous patriots calling for Assange's head while the people who are for Assange don't seem to be nearly as crazy...which is ironic considering the people calling for Assange's head have been calling people who are pro-wikileaks over emotional...
I know it's not a popular opinion, but this doesn't have a damn thing to do with freedom, accountability, or justice. Just because it's information doesn't make it free, and free speech is not unlimited, not under any doctrine in the history of mankind.
The man stole sensitive documents (and disseminating this stuff is not legal) and then paraded them for all to see. Just because they're government officials doesn't make them immune from some semblance of privacy. How would you like it if some asshole hacked your computer, took private messages you wrote to loved ones or whoever, and then publicized them? Doing so without regard to the consequences is like yelling fire in a theater...it's not legal either way. As if to prove the point, many of his "supporters" then tried to engage in cyber-terrorism, using DDS bots as retribution. To supporters...where's the line? Bank accounts? Credit cards? All of this is technically information, right?
The sexual assault charges do seem suspect, granted, but that guy's actions are not lauditory. If Wikileaks existed during the cold war, you can damn well better believe the planet would have gone up in a nuclear blast. Diplomacy hinges on being able to construct and present an image...and it's all paper thin, by necessity. Once that breaks down, more wars happen, and ultimately a lot more of people start dying.
As for the cold war, actually, no. I don't believe that would be the case at all. If information was leaked about how shoddy cold war targeting computers were, you'd better believe there would have been a bigger public outcry. Information would have ended to cold war.
Also...if what he did IS a crime, charge him with it. Don't trump up some phony sex charges.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment