Its founder, Assange, has turned himself in on rape and molestation charges.
Amazon and PayPal have disowned the site, removing it from their feeds over their distaste of the site's apparent mission.
The host server has disconnected the site, citing fear of cyber-damage to the thousands of other sites they host.
Do you believe Wikileaks went too far?
Is Assange getting framed as a rapist?
Are the reasons cited by the above-named Internet giants sufficient, or were they pressured by a higher power?
It's been an interesting ride so far...
id say the sites are just trying to distance themselves as much as they can. wether he's guilty of rape or not they dont want any part of it.
weren't most of the leaks based on u.s. items. id think it extra hard for the us goverment to talk to sweden and get rape charches brought up in another country. just seems even further far fetched to me. (it was sweden wasn't it.. or switzerland. that charged him)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Do you believe Wikileaks went too far?
- IMO yes, however this is where the debate of freedom of speech, the right to inform and other the other fun stuff comes into play. So this will never end with a correct answer. IMO it depends on the information, those who it would affect and the size.
Is Assange getting framed as a rapist?
- I'm not sure I haven't seen a cable released on Wikileaks about it yet. But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. You will see things come at him or his site as well as any associates of his over a leak of such capacity.
Are the reasons cited by the above-named Internet giants sufficient, or were they pressured by a higher power?
- I'm sure they were getting pressured. It wouldn't be good for business that could possibly be affected by an attack on Wikilinks and for bad publicity. A corporation is to act in the best interest of its stockholders and IMO this was a given. I'm sure they had some pressure from "other" sources as well but I wasn't shocked in the least.
I'm also not shocked that the Swiss bank banked out and got out of dodge. The last thing they would want is government agencies looking into their accounts and who's linked from where. I personally found that comical, they were one of the first and they based it off of him lying on an application. Lol good stuff there.
sndsgood wrote:id say the sites are just trying to distance themselves as much as they can. wether he's guilty of rape or not they dont want any part of it.
weren't most of the leaks based on u.s. items. id think it extra hard for the us goverment to talk to sweden and get rape charches brought up in another country. just seems even further far fetched to me. (it was sweden wasn't it.. or switzerland. that charged him)
Absolutely not the cables affect numerous countries. This will gain attention from leaders, countries and organizations all over the world. Not just U.S. based. I also give 100% credit to our government regulated the use of the site and its contents. They made it so that anyone looking at the site from work or personal computers can be reprimanded based on the regulation of classified material. Since Wikileaks isn't authorized to declassify information the information will still carry the title of official classified documents. I think that is a swift move and perfectly with in there rights. Not to say that doesn't stop anyone from gathering the information but it does take a stance and send a message. Strong or not I just thought it was pretty slick.
No, you don't tug on Superman's cape,
You don't spit in the wind,
You don't pull the mask of the ol' Lone Ranger,
And you don't mess around with every major world power, and not get f-d up.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
To start with I do think this man has an anti-American slant to him, and isn't a great guy personally, so initially I didn't have much sympathy for his mission - particularily after that helicopter footage release. But so many things have come to light because of his work to ignore.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Its founder, Assange, has turned himself in on rape and molestation charges.
Oh about that...
Quote:
According to a police source: ‘They had a discussion and decided it would be OK to share the living space, then went out together for dinner.
'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
...
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. ‘I didn’t feel I knew him very well,’ she explained.
There is plenty more to read in that article if you really care too. I'm gonna have to call it trumped up garbage most likely. Motives could easily range from "character assassination" (and I already don't think much of his character personally - but that is irrelevant to what his site does) to a strong extradition treaty between the US/Sweden(or so it has been alleged by some). Ridiculously enough, Obama has been exploring charges of treason against him - a non-US citizen - for basically publishing documents that someone else gave him. Many newspapers and sites have since republished much of this info. Yet they go to all this trouble to destroy one man's freedom of speech(which I assert EVERY man has an inalienable right too). I actually marvel that this comes from a guy who wants was a college professor of Constitutional LAW. I'd expect this kinda @!#$ from Iran etc, not EVER the US. In Washington DC's derangement with Assange(or perhaps their fear of him), they've all lost their freakin minds.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Amazon and PayPal have disowned the site, removing it from their feeds over their distaste of the site's apparent mission.
The host server has disconnected the site, citing fear of cyber-damage to the thousands of other sites they host.
Obvious pressure from US Government officials aside, I wonder if
THIS has anything to do with it also.
Quote:
"We have one related to a bank coming up, that's a megaleak. It's not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it's either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it," Assange said in the interview posted on the Forbes website.
He declined to identify the bank, describing it only as a major U.S. bank that is still in existence.
Asked what he wanted to be the result of the disclosure, he replied: "I'm not sure. It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume."
He compared this release to emails that were unveiled as a result of the collapse of disgraced energy company Enron Corp.
"This will be like that. Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed, but it will also be all the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos ... and that's tremendously valuable," Assange said.
"You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it's also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that's not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they're fulfilling their own self-interest," he said.
Assange also told the magazine that his group has material on many businesses and governments, including in Russia, and that it has some documents on pharmaceutical companies, which he did not identify.
So he's about to cause a tidal wave in the financial industry, First Amazon and now Paypal, Visa, Mastercard are suddenly cutting him off? I can't say its surprising. Then later on for "many businesses and governments." This man isn't David fighting Goliath, he's David challenging a legion of Goliaths. All of the corrupt. unethical, and/or incompetent government leaders/bureaucrats/ and business leaders - even men who normally hate each other - have found in one man a common enemy. He's got balls, I'll give him that.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Do you believe Wikileaks went too far?
My initial knee-jerk reaction was yes. Upon further examination, I really don't think so. If you just took the MSM's version of it though, you would probably think he has. Take this rather lengthy article(in a
UK news media article mind you).
Quote:
By the time I come to talk to Assange, his very last interview of the week, the backlash is in full swing. "Have you seen this?" he says waving a copy of the Times at me. "Have you seen how much bull@!#$ this is? Have you seen page 13? Do you think I should call [the libel law firm] Carter-Ruck?
"It would be a bit silly for me but I'm tempted to. Just look at the headlines and the photo. What's the imputation?"
There's a photo of Assange below a headline that reads "'Taliban hitlist' row: WikiLeaks founder says he did right thing". And next to the photo, another headline reading "Named man is already dead." The imputation is quite clearly that Assange's actions have resulted in the man's death, although in the story itself it makes it clear that he actually died two years ago.
"Is it clear?" says Assange. "Let's see how much we have to read before we reach that information. It's not in the first paragraph, second, third, fourth, it's not in the fifth. It's not until the sixth paragraph you learn that."
Considering the amount people that love reading only the headlines(or maybe a brief summary) to form their opinion while sparing the details, its a very justifiable criticism. I can't count the articles I've personally read where the contents eventually say exactly the opposite of the headline/summary or at least shows it to be highly misleading.
Also from that article regarding the Afghanistan leaks
Quote:
"This material was available to every soldier and contractor in Afghanistan …It's the US military that deserves the blame for not giving due diligence to its informers."
Well he's right. He released the files - sensitive info redacted. But just how was it possible to leak this to him from the start?!
One single man did it. If indeed "every soldier and contractor in Afghanistan" has access to these files, it would only take
one single man, one traitor - be they ideologically sympathetic to the Taliban or just bribed enough money - to turn this information over to them in its complete (aka un-redacted form). Why was this info so very available to so many? We can only hope that Wikileaks alone received these files in their complete form. That truly is beyond reckless. This is something Wikileaks has brought to light, and something that supposedly has been corrected.
So for all the documents about about the wars revealed thus far, again those documents are REDACTED - meaning sensitive info actually critical to national security and/or able to get people killed - has been REMOVED. You also have the diplomatic cables too. These leaks are highly EMBARRASSING, showing things that should not have BEEN DONE, or where done BADLY. These aren't things hidden so much to protect American interest as much as political interests.
Wikileaks is guilty of one thing - committing acts of real journalism in a world where the media is corporately owned and completely muzzled. Wikileaks has harmed politicians by embarrassing them, and they are scarred @!#$less that the public may learn too much of the truth - and hold them ACCOUNTABLE.
Our Government may be in the business of keeping secrets - sometimes understandably but this also gets heavily abused. However our media (at least at one time) was in the business of bringing those secrets to light - as many of those secrets should never have been secrets. The new stories we often here sound nearly verbatim of official Government reports. The days of the media questioning the government - and thus holding it accountable to the people - are long over. If the media was remotely doing its job, we would never need something like Wikileaks, nor would any of its content seem so revolutionary as we see it now.
This isn't about national security,
its about political security for politicians(and corporations) who have reason to fear the truth. Its not that hard too see either, that the ones doing the most saber rattling towards Wikileaks are also the ones who have the greatest stake in being unaccountable for their actions. Its also probably no accident that all the outrage they generate towards Wikileaks seems to effectively move our attention away from the actual content of the leaks. This is what they are best at - damage control. This is political theater.
One other thing he said there in that article which I find absolutely true "
You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion." I think was Wikileaks does is very essential to any healthy Democracy.
I'm also gonna post this here, since American newpapers will not. It is biased of course, but not incorrect. I'm posting it separately, as my last post was quite long enough.
Julian Assange wrote:IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."
His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.
Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.
I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.
These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.
WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?
Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.
People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.
If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.
WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.
Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.
And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.
Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.
We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.
Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.
Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?
It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.
But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:
► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.
► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.
► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.
► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".
► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.
► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.
In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.
I need to only add one thing. Some people go so far as to call him a "terrorist" etc, and to those people he may be. We live in a world where we are told just how much truth "we should be allowed to know," that the authorities can always be completely trusted to tell us what "we should be allowed to know," and that despite all the incidents in the past, they would NEVER (again) betray that trust. In the immortal words of George Orwell - “In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Treasonus acts against one's own nation should never be confused with "the Truth".
While you toss around schoolboy Orwellian terminology like it is some form of philosophical gold, let me toss a term back at ya...Utopian.
In your apparently Utopian construct of how the world
should work, you would decry the existence of CLASSIFIED information as somehow "obstructing" the Truth. In this instance, I use the term Utopian to refer to something desirable in a simplistic literal perspective, yet completely impossible from a practical standpoint. CLASSIFIED information is not for everyone's eyes, no matter how much sinister spectres of Big Brother reverberate in your apparently simple worldview. It never has been, in the whole of human history. The "need to know" is an essential concept; it is logical at its core, sensible in its execution.
Really. Be serious.
Oh I assure you of one thing, my worldview is anything but simple. I don't think a utopia is possible obviously, the nature of man does not allow it's existence. The world doesn't work "as it should work" - never has and never will. I'm not so naive. I don't think we should give up and roll over either. Absolutely no Government secrets will not make an ideal world, but neither will a world of unchallenged absolute secrecy. There is a trick sometimes, in making a man think he has only 2 choices. You see we live in a world of grey, after all. I think we should just do the best we can, what we can when we can. Nor do I boil everything down to one sinister "big brother." I believe you are attempting to throw a straw man at me, but I don't know if it was intentional, or that you have been conditioned to think that way.
There will always be incompetence, nepotism, and corruption, yet the cause of fighting it is not worthless.
"The 'need to know' is an essential concept" you say, and I never actually said it was not. I in fact said this - "
Our Government may be in the business of keeping secrets - sometimes understandably but this also gets heavily abused." I acknowledge that there is a legitimate need - in
some cases - for government secrecy. But the power to cover up the facts - while it does have a legitimate use - also has a ton of potential for misuse. We've seen again and again how this plays out.
Wikileaks doesn't just release EVERYTHING they can get their hands on. They go through it, and release what they believe to be information that people need to know. That might be the biggest problem - what THEY believe might not coincide with what others might believe. But some of that information should never have been secret to start with. Its far from perfect, yes. As a political moderate, you of all should understand well why you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm quite serious, sir.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Treasonus acts against one's own nation should never be confused with "the Truth".
Oh that is a very interesting think you have to say there. But just what is it that makes what he did treasonus to start with? Because you think so, or because you where told as much? Not that "treason against ones own nation" is even applicable when he is not a US citizen. Point of fact, He is an Australian citizen. What you propose is every bit as ludicrous as Obama being guilty of treason against Iran. I also should note that contrary to what the media may attempt to tell you, he in fact releases information about many countries. There is a good example of that in the 3rd link I posted. Its a somewhat long, but good read and I recommend it.
The fact is he was leaking stolen information, which had the power to effect the public's well-being. If that's ok to do, then it would also be ok for me to steal your credit card or social security numbers, and post it on the internet too.
Link.
Quote:
A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try and "quash" the story, according to one of the US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks.
Nothing to see here folks.
Quote:
In a meeting with the assistant US ambassador, a panicked Hanif Atmar, the interior minister at the time of the episode last June, warned that the story would "endanger lives" and was particularly concerned that a video of the incident might be made public.
Oh, nothing familiar about that argument, now is there?
Quote:
The episode helped to fuel Afghan demands that contractors and private security companies be brought under much tighter government control. However, the US embassy was legally incapable of honouring a request by Atmar that the US military should assume authority over training centres managed by DynCorp, the US company whose employees were involved in the incident in the northern province of Kunduz.
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.
Well I don't see where anyone would have a problem with this then... right? I mean if its tradition and all.
Quote:
"He was convinced that the Kunduz incident, and other events where mentors had obtained drugs, could not have happened without Afghan participation," the cable said.
Two Afghan policemen and nine other Afghans were arrested as part of investigations into a crime described by Atmar as "purchasing a service from a child", which the cable said was against both sharia law and the civil code.
He insisted that a journalist looking into the incident should be told that the story would endanger lives, and that the US should try to quash the story. But US diplomats cautioned against an "overreaction" and said that approaching the journalist involved would only make the story worse.
So the US covers up a contractor buying little boys as prostitutes - no doubt on the US taxpayer dime. Just who was it that was supposed to be in danger from these leaks again?
Now I don't think all the stuff covered up is quite this bad(although some of it may possibly be worse), but its a clear cut example of what I am talking about. This was confidential "for a good reason," now wasn't it?
Get to work reading these leaks, and lets see if your opinion doesn't sway as mine has. As I mentioned, I initially opposed what Wikileaks was doing. Obviously, that is no longer the case. I suspect, in time it will no longer be the case for many others. Changing one's stated opinion in light of new information is nothing to be ashamed of.
I think you might also want to look into ACTA, etc. I mean besides making the taxpayer foot the bill for the MPAA etc's private civil problems, it allows the US government do pull sites off the internet entirely(as if the worldwide internet was the sole property of the US) - at its own discretion. Its not hard to see the overlap here, or the clear potential for blatant abuse. China and Iran only filter content inside their own borders, but I guess we need to one-up them by manipulating the entire internet. Its good to find such common ground, isn't it? No, I don't think our government - nor anyone else - can be trusted with that power. I wouldn't trust myself with it for long.
In general I believe any government should have all the powers necessary to fulfill its functions, and nothing more. A free Democracy or Republic such as ours needs no such power as this. It is a huge over-reach.
bk3k wrote:Oh I assure you of one thing, my worldview is anything but simple. I don't think a utopia is possible obviously, the nature of man does not allow it's existence. The world doesn't work "as it should work" - never has and never will. I'm not so naive. I don't think we should give up and roll over either. Absolutely no Government secrets will not make an ideal world, but neither will a world of unchallenged absolute secrecy. There is a trick sometimes, in making a man think he has only 2 choices. You see we live in a world of grey, after all. I think we should just do the best we can, what we can when we can. Nor do I boil everything down to one sinister "big brother." I believe you are attempting to throw a straw man at me, but I don't know if it was intentional, or that you have been conditioned to think that way.
There will always be incompetence, nepotism, and corruption, yet the cause of fighting it is not worthless.
"The 'need to know' is an essential concept" you say, and I never actually said it was not. I in fact said this - "Our Government may be in the business of keeping secrets - sometimes understandably but this also gets heavily abused." I acknowledge that there is a legitimate need - in some cases - for government secrecy. But the power to cover up the facts - while it does have a legitimate use - also has a ton of potential for misuse. We've seen again and again how this plays out.
Wikileaks doesn't just release EVERYTHING they can get their hands on. They go through it, and release what they believe to be information that people need to know. That might be the biggest problem - what THEY believe might not coincide with what others might believe. But some of that information should never have been secret to start with. Its far from perfect, yes. As a political moderate, you of all should understand well why you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm quite serious, sir.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Treasonus acts against one's own nation should never be confused with "the Truth".
Oh that is a very interesting think you have to say there. But just what is it that makes what he did treasonus to start with? Because you think so, or because you where told as much? Not that "treason against ones own nation" is even applicable when he is not a US citizen. Point of fact, He is an Australian citizen. What you propose is every bit as ludicrous as Obama being guilty of treason against Iran. I also should note that contrary to what the media may attempt to tell you, he in fact releases information about many countries. There is a good example of that in the 3rd link I posted. Its a somewhat long, but good read and I recommend it.
Forgive me for mistaking him for an American citizen. Shows you right there how much I read the media, lol!
Regardless of his citizenship, he's committed crimes against the USA. Perhaps rather than treason, this means espionage charges may be forthcoming instead. I only hope he can be held accountable for these breaches of our confidential information. The fact that Australia is our close ally should work in our favor insofar as ultimate extradition efforts. His actions to date repulse me. That's my opinion, and strongly felt at that.
Fcuk the media. I don't read it, so don't delude yourself, or even try to use that easy-out on me...it's completely useless, and rather weak at that. Fight like a man, and don't hide behind such lameness. It diminishes you.
deuce_coupe_cavy wrote:The fact is he was leaking stolen information, which had the power to effect the public's well-being. If that's ok to do, then it would also be ok for me to steal your credit card or social security numbers, and post it on the internet too.
Terrific false equivalence you have there. Play again.
Journalist also exposed the abuses of Abu Ghraib, which some would say harmed America's mission in Iraq. I counter in that the abuses themselves having taken place at all are what harmed the mission in Iraq. This is just an example. So do you then have the right to expose the journalists SSN, credit card #s, etc? It is not the same thing, not at all.
The same government that says it needs the right to tap your phone and read your emails without warrant, also says that what is does cannot ever be known. Government needs to keep certain, limited things secret. But citizens have a right to know what the government does. They are ruling on our behalf, so we should not know what they do in our name?
"which had the power to effect the public's well-being" - Is that simply what you have been told, or do you know something specific? If you have an example of Wikileaks clearly harming the public's well being, please share it.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Regardless of his citizenship, he's committed crimes against the USA. Perhaps rather than treason, this means espionage charges may be forthcoming instead. I only hope he can be held accountable for these breaches of our confidential information. The fact that Australia is our close ally should work in our favor insofar as ultimate extradition efforts. His actions to date repulse me. That's my opinion, and strongly felt at that.
Then how do you feel about journalist who tell us about the US Government wiretapping US Citizens without a warrant? Was that not classified information?! Was not Iran-Contra a classified operation?! Obviously I could go through a laundry list if I needed too, but I think 2 random items make my point sufficiently. How is this different? Should not those journalists who report these things be brought to justice?!
Think a moment about what you are really saying. Also to correct you, he didn't steal the information. He received it from the man who did - a man who has been apprehended. He only published them. Not so different than what any news organization on earth might do. In fact, those same news organizations are RE-PUBLISHING that classified info. Should not they all be arrested, if not assassinated as some have called for Assange? They are doing EXACTLY the same thing, just not doing it FIRST. There is likely NOTHING as important to a free society as a free media. That is the heaviest issue really at stake here.
You know the real difference? He has no newspaper, no TV station. He is not beholden to stock holders. He has only a website and thousands of unpaid volunteers. The other thing is that he exhibits unpopular speech. Therefore, he is unworthy of the protections most journalist take for granted in the free world. I think Voltaire would like to have a word with you.
bk3k wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Regardless of his citizenship, he's committed crimes against the USA. Perhaps rather than treason, this means espionage charges may be forthcoming instead. I only hope he can be held accountable for these breaches of our confidential information. The fact that Australia is our close ally should work in our favor insofar as ultimate extradition efforts. His actions to date repulse me. That's my opinion, and strongly felt at that.
Then how do you feel about journalist who tell us about the US Government wiretapping US Citizens without a warrant? Was that not classified information?! Was not Iran-Contra a classified operation?! Obviously I could go through a laundry list if I needed too, but I think 2 random items make my point sufficiently. How is this different? Should not those journalists who report these things be brought to justice?!
Think a moment about what you are really saying. Also to correct you, he didn't steal the information. He received it from the man who did - a man who has been apprehended. He only published them. Not so different than what any news organization on earth might do. In fact, those same news organizations are RE-PUBLISHING that classified info. Should not they all be arrested, if not assassinated as some have called for Assange? They are doing EXACTLY the same thing, just not doing it FIRST. There is likely NOTHING as important to a free society as a free media. That is the heaviest issue really at stake here.
You know the real difference? He has no newspaper, no TV station. He is not beholden to stock holders. He has only a website and thousands of unpaid volunteers. The other thing is that he exhibits unpopular speech. Therefore, he is unworthy of the protections most journalist take for granted in the free world. I think Voltaire would like to have a word with you.
I'm sorry that aspects of national security make you paranoid, but frankly...that's your burden to bear, not mine. Assange could have taken any number of other paths to prove what an upstanding man he is. However, he chose this one, and it made him a pariah. He did exercise free choice, I'll give him that...the choice to make himself an enemy of the state. I hope he enjoys his messiah status from behind bars. What a flawed megalomaniac, lol!
However, do get a chuckle that you are in one breath assailing the USA's right to keep a lid on classified information, then in the next, complaining about a journalist's personal information being surveilled. You're screaming out of both sides of your mouth. I suspect you don't even realize what a huge contradiction in your own standards you have just exposed...that is, you didn't realize it until I just now turned it back upon you.
Dance for me now. Tell me how it's OK for a journo to have secret info, but not for the USA. Tell me how it's a crime to take that journo's private info, but OK to take the USA's private info. I await your explanation with great anticipation.
bk3k wrote:Also to correct you, he didn't steal the information.
And to correct you...please show me where I said Assange stole any information.
Methinks you're confusing me, the person, with your imagined enemy, the "movement" against Assange. Slow down, breathe. Read what I typed, not what you are automatically attributing to me in your knee-jerk reaction to my disgust with Assange.
Or...stand corrected.
so do we feel that it should be up to the citizins to decide what is classified and what isnt? that will set you up for a failure in itself. sending out letters that are basically private that state someones demeaner or how to handle another president or dignitary may not seem like a big deal to you but when that dignitary reads that it could quite possibly set back talks weve had with that person hugely.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
to Wikileaks keep up the good work .
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved Acts 16:31
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
" Mark Twain "
