Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo


View Poll Results: Assange is responsible for a number of Innocent Deaths
Yes 11 50.00%
No 5 22.73%
He was right to release the files 7 31.82%
He was wrong to release the files 6 27.27%
Do not give a hoot about repercussions. We had to know. 1 4.55%
The US Govt will eventually catch him 4 18.18%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

mentalfloss
#121
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

There is a HUGE chasm between freedom of speech and treason (in the case of Manning) and offering aid, comfort, and information to the enemy (in the case of Assange)

How much are you willing to sacrifice for freedom of speech is the real question.
 
petros
#122
I'll take freedom of speech over hypothetical dead informants anyday. If the treason supporters think the Taliban didn't know who was ratting them out are living in la la land.

They are uneducated and don't have any hackers of their own. They have to wait around for guys like Manning and his command chain to **** up to get an edge.
 
Cliffy
+1
#123
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Cliffy - I believe you are a good man. But I posed some questions for you.

Like what? Why do you expect me to answer your questions when you just said those who don't think like you do are fkn nuts? You keep putting words in my mouth and then ask me to explain them to you. You put them there, you explain them.

The only point I am making is that people are making a big deal about a small frog in a big pond then ignoring the big frog that is killing all the other inhabitants. People want to call him treasonous, then call Bush, Cheney, Blair, Martin and Harpo treasonous too. They are responsible for a lot of known deaths compared to Asange's supposed influence causing insinuated deaths.
 
Cliffy
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

There is a HUGE chasm between freedom of speech and treason (in the case of Manning) and offering aid, comfort, and information to the enemy (in the case of Assange)

Those are judgements based on your opinions about what is right and wrong. The American colonialists who fought for their independence from England were considered treasonous by the Brits. They were seen as terrorists. They saw themselves as freedom fighters. The Afghani people fighting against the invaders have always seen themselves as freedom fighters but we call them terrorists. Asange calls what he does freedom of speech, you call it treason. It may be considered protecting our self interests to invade other countries but to those being invaded it is seen as an invasion. Who is right and wrong is only a matter of perspective.
 
CDNBear
+2
#125
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

My political bent?

I'm not the one with a my hero on my watch.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That's because the double-speak and hypocrisy of the media is deluding you.

And the double speak and hypocrisy of the media is worse than your spin how?

Quote:

And the U.S. admits wikileaks has not been a threat.

WikiLeaks has caused little lasting damage, says US state department | Media | The Guardian (external - login to view)

Do you read the links you post? Or are you like other members here, who have their erroneous beliefs challenged, and just run out and try and find something to defend them. Instead of actually taking a look at your erroneous beliefs?

Here's some memorable quotes from your link...

The damage caused by the WikiLeaks (external - login to view) controversy has caused little real and lasting damage to American diplomacy, senior state department officials have concluded.

The official implied that the WikiLeaks fiasco was bad public relations but had little concrete impact on policy.

Damage assessments by the state department, Pentagon and US intelligence community are meanwhile still continuing to focus on the leaks.

If you did read it, maybe you should actually read the words that are there, and not make up what you want it to say. That will likely be hard for a spin doctor such as yourself.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The US has talked about charging him but won't in the end. If they could do so they would have a long time ago but since all of his acticvities were outside of US jurisdiction there is not much tehy can do.

I think they will, if there isn't already a sealed Grand Jury warrant already out there.

Quote:

After all, imagine that during the court procedings one of the women changed her mind and came out with the ruse.

Imagine if he is actually guilty. And all this time, those women are being tried in the court of public opinion, for something they aren't part of.

Talk about victimization.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Yes, those of us that don't fall neatly have no values.

We're completely valueless.

Sure looks that way from here.

Quote:

The only difference between the two is how much they are willing to sacrifice security to achieve that end.

Ya, Levant is willing to risk himself. Assange, other people.

Ask me who I have more respect for.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

How much are you willing to sacrifice for freedom of speech is the real question.

Myself, and/or those that would stifle it.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I'll take freedom of speech over hypothetical dead informants anyday. If the treason supporters think the Taliban didn't know who was ratting them out are living in la la land.

I'll take logic, case law and facts over your lal la land thinking any day.

Quote:

They are uneducated and don't have any hackers of their own. They have to wait around for guys like Manning and his command chain to **** up to get an edge.

You haven't been keeping up on how they have gone off the grid.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The only point I am making is that people are making a big deal about a small frog in a big pond then ignoring the big frog that is killing all the other inhabitants. People want to call him treasonous, then call Bush, Cheney, Blair, Martin and Harpo treasonous too. They are responsible for a lot of known deaths compared to Asange's supposed influence causing insinuated deaths.

I'm not going to debate the illegality of either conflict here, but lets assume for a minute that they are all illegal.

How does two wrongs make a right?
Last edited by CDNBear; Dec 28th, 2011 at 07:43 AM..
 
Cliffy
#126
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'm not going to debate the illegality of either conflict here, but lets assume for a minute that they are all illegal.

How does two wrongs make a right?

How are we going t know it is illegal unless someone exposes the wrong doing. Someone sticks their neck out and everybody screams "Chop it off!" The Japanese have a saying, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered." If Assange does go down for the leaks, what of the newspapers that published them? Should they be charged with treason too?
 
CDNBear
+2
#127
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

How are we going t know it is illegal unless someone exposes the wrong doing.

Let's keep this simple. I have no issues with redacted, release of non troops in the field, material.

Quote:

Someone sticks their neck out and everybody screams "Chop it off!" The Japanese have a saying, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered." If Assange does go down for the leaks, what of the newspapers that published them? Should they be charged with treason too?

To the best of my knowledge, all traditional media outlets, redacted names, of questionable materials.

The First Amendment standard is, third party outlets, are not prosecuted. But there seems to be some question as to whether Assange was a third party, or if he acted in concert.

Then there's intent, a sticky thing to prove, but something Assange has removed any doubts about, with his commentary on the danger he put CI's in. As well as his expressed views of the enemy.

The First Amendment and free speech is surely meant to protect those that blow the whistle on gov't wrong doing. That I can and will always support. I haven't read all the documents in question, I can imagine there are some communiques that paint the the Allies in a bad light, or should have been published in the publics interest.

But I can't for the life of me, figure out how the names, villages and GPS coordinates of third party CI's, is essentially in the publics interest.

The First Amendment and the right to free speech, were never meant to protect lending aid to the enemy. When Assange was asked about the danger he put these people in, he was quite clear about what he thought of them. That stands in stark contrast to the RoE and standard military policy on collateral damage.

If you bristle at what you see as abhorrent action by military powers, what Assange has done, should leave you apoplectic.
 
mentalfloss
#128
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

The official implied that the WikiLeaks fiasco was bad public relations but had little concrete impact on policy.

When it comes to security, policy both affects and is affected by some form of threat.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ya, Levant is willing to risk himself. Assange, other people.

Ask me who I have more respect for.

Assange's head is being sought after by governments world wide and is now at the mercy of the courts. He's risked more than Levant.
 
CDNBear
#129
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

When it comes to security, policy both affects and is affected by some form of threat.

Hmmm...

A little spin. Check.

A little cherry picking. Check.

I had no doubt Assange was a hero of yours.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Assange's head is being sought after by governments world wide and is now at the mercy of the courts. He's risked more than Levant.

Ya, I would imagine you would want to keep forgetting about the people whose lives he jeopardized.
 
mentalfloss
#130
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Hmmm...

A little spin. Check.

A little cherry picking. Check.

I had no doubt Assange was a hero of yours.

Ya, I would imagine you would want to keep forgetting about the people whose lives he jeopardized.

Which people?
 
CDNBear
#131
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Which people?

Stop being obtuse. Even your hero Assange recognizes them.

Unless of course you really don't know, even though they've been mentioned a dozen times in this thread. Which would make you an idiot of course.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#132
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Stop being obtuse. Even your hero Assange recognizes them.

Unless of course you really don't know, even though they've been mentioned a dozen times in this thread. Which would make you an idiot of course.

I honestly don't know as I don't follow the wikileaks stuff that closely.

Which people are under threat?
 
CDNBear
#133
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I honestly don't know.

So the latter it is.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

So the latter it is.

I've done a few searches on google for security threats or probable deaths relating to wikileaks and haven't found anything.

Do you have a link?
 
CDNBear
+1
#135
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I've done a few searches on google for security threats or probable deaths relating to wikileaks and haven't found anything.

Not surprising. You only read what you want, or how you want it to read.

That's why I keep pointing out your ideological problems. In hopes you'll abandon them.

Quote:

Do you have a link?

Already posted it. Complete with a quote from Assange, where he recognizes them, and dismisses the danger he placed them in, as their problem and they deserved it.

Like I said, I can imagine how you would want to ignore it. It must frustrate the sh!t out of you, when your hero is worse than those you have a bias against.

BTW; I find it odd that you have no issue with Assange reporting this material, while you supported the NDP suing the Sun.

Don't worry though. It's not as if no one wasn't aware of you being an ideologue.
 
mentalfloss
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Already posted it. Complete with a quote from Assange, where he recognizes them, and dismisses the danger he placed them in, as their problem and they deserved it.

You posted a link that shows a threat directly related to Wikilinks?

I don't see it.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

BTW; I find it odd that you have no issue with Assange reporting this material, while you supported the NDP suing the Sun.

This is an incongruent comparison as someone can have the freedom to speak or reveal information, but also be responsible for that freedom. Assange can be held responsible and successfully sued for revealing certain information just as the Sun can be successfully sued for revealing certain information.

In neither case do the consequences mean either party does not have the freedom to reveal information.
 
SLM
+3
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I've done a few searches on google for security threats or probable deaths relating to wikileaks and haven't found anything.

Do you have a link?

Does an actual death have to have occured in order for the releasing of individual's names to be considered wrong?

If you down a bottle of whiskey, get into your car and drive 100km but you don't happen to get into an accident and kill someone, is the action you undertook still wrong? Or is it all alright because you didn't actually kill anyone?

The threat of danger was there. A fricken sharpie would have ended this debate before it started.
 
Machjo
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Like what? Why do you expect me to answer your questions when you just said those who don't think like you do are fkn nuts? You keep putting words in my mouth and then ask me to explain them to you. You put them there, you explain them.

The only point I am making is that people are making a big deal about a small frog in a big pond then ignoring the big frog that is killing all the other inhabitants. People want to call him treasonous, then call Bush, Cheney, Blair, Martin and Harpo treasonous too. They are responsible for a lot of known deaths compared to Asange's supposed influence causing insinuated deaths.

Then another question. Let's say the country Assange was in decides to prosecute him according to his having violate their personal privacy laws in regards to those Afghan informants of which he may have revealed the identity. While he may not have vilolated any US laws, he might very well have violated some personal privacy laws that would have applied in the country in which he'd committed such acts. Would you consider that a legitimate case?
 
CDNBear
+1
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

You posted a link that shows a threat directly related to Wikilinks?

I don't see it.

Yes, it's already been established that you only acknowledge information that support your ideology. There is no need to continue highlighting it.

Quote:

This is an incongruent comparison as someone can have the freedom to speak or reveal information, but also be responsible for that freedom. Assange can be held responsible and successfully sued for revealing certain information just as the Sun can be successfully sued for revealing certain information.

It's completely congruent. Just because you want to spin your two differing opinions in a way that makes you look logically consistent. Doesn't make it so.

Quote:

In neither case do the consequences mean either party does not have the freedom to reveal information.

I disagree, the laws are quite clear on the matter. But the point was to illustrate your heavily biased, ideological double standard. Which of course renders you heavily biased, ideological double standard, and uninformed, opinion worthless, is all.
 
mentalfloss
#140
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Does an actual death have to have occured in order for the releasing of individual's names to be considered wrong?

No, but we don't even know what extent or who is really threatened by the wikileaks releases.
 
CDNBear
+2
#141
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Does an actual death have to have occured in order for the releasing of individual's names to be considered wrong?

If you down a bottle of whiskey, get into your car and drive 100km but you don't happen to get into an accident and kill someone, is the action you undertook still wrong? Or is it all alright because you didn't actually kill anyone?

The threat of danger was there. A fricken sharpie would have ended this debate before it started.

Bingo!

The case law on the matter is quite clear.

Only the morally bankrupt defend Assange releasing names of CI's.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No, but we don't even know what extent or who is really threatened by the wikileaks releases.

Yes we do, even Assange acknowledges that.

Again, I can understand how you would want to ignore that.
 
mentalfloss
#142
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Yes we do, even Assange acknowledges that.

Again, I can understand how you would want to ignore that.

I agree with him that public relations at face value might have been affected but we see now that nothing significant has really happened.
 
CDNBear
+3
#143
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I agree with him that public relations at face value might have been affected but we see now that nothing significant has really happened.

That isn't all he acknowledged.

But now that you've joined the ranks of Mhz and EAO, in moral relativism/bankruptcy, double standards, and hypocrisy. There really is no doubt that your opinion is worthless on the matter.
 
SLM
+3
#144
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No, but we don't even know what extent or who is really threatened by the wikileaks releases.

It does not matter.

Let's say for example, that someone hacked into a companies files and could prove, by releasing the financial information of it's customers, that said company has been aggregiously ripping off it's customer base for years. I'm talking rock solid proof here. Now, personally I think this is something that the public would have the right to know. Post that online and expose the corruption. I'd be all for that. Now let's say all the information is released in it's raw form, exposing not only the wrong doing but all the personal and private information of it's customers. Names, addresses, age, social insurance numbers, the whole shebang.Information that, while certainly true, is not really all that relevant to the big picture. And that exposure could lead to so many problems, maybe it wouldn't but that doesn't make it right, morally and ethically right, to release it.

It's all about integrity and the lack thereof in this particular part of the leaked and posted info, the revelation of names, taints the entire picture as far as I am concerned. It certainly taints the picutre of the man who made the decision.
 
CDNBear
+1
#145
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

It does not matter.

Agreed.

Quote:

It's all about integrity and the lack thereof in this particular part of the leaked and posted info, the revelation of names, taints the entire picture as far as I am concerned. It certainly taints the picutre of the man who made the decision.

I could have passed it off as a mistake. But then Assange went and removed all doubt with his "they deserve it" comment.

Only the morally bankrupt hypocrites and ideologues will continue to defend the man. The case law and the principle as to why it was wrong, are quite clear to anyone objective.
Last edited by CDNBear; Dec 28th, 2011 at 08:52 AM..
 
mentalfloss
#146
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

It does not matter.

Let's say for example, that someone hacked into a companies files and could prove, by releasing the financial information of it's customers, that said company has been aggregiously ripping off it's customer base for years. I'm talking rock solid proof here. Now, personally I think this is something that the public would have the right to know. Post that online and expose the corruption. I'd be all for that. Now let's say all the information is released in it's raw form, exposing not only the wrong doing but all the personal and private information of it's customers. Names, addresses, age, social insurance numbers, the whole shebang.Information that, while certainly true, is not really all that relevant to the big picture. And that exposure could lead to so many problems, maybe it wouldn't but that doesn't make it right, morally and ethically right, to release it.

It's all about integrity and the lack thereof in this particular part of the leaked and posted info, the revelation of names, taints the entire picture as far as I am concerned. It certainly taints the picutre of the man who made the decision.

I'm sure it does taint it.

But none of what you have stated denies the fact that the extent of harm stemming from any release of information depends on the nature of that information and those affected by the release.

The methodology for the release, as you've outlined, does flavour the situation but it doesn't translate into a serious or legitimate threat.

In fact, this thread's poll asks if the release was responsible for innocent deaths and there is no evidence to show that it is.
 
CDNBear
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The methodology for the release, as you've outlined, does flavour the situation but it doesn't translate into a threat.

Really? Even your hero Assange acknowledges that it does.

According to you, all case law on the confidentiality of CI's is rendered moot.

Who knew Assange and the Supreme Courts of so many countries could be so wrong...
 
SLM
+1
#148
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I could have passed it off as a mistake. But then Assange went and removed all doubt with his "they deserve it" comment.

I get what you're saying but I wouldn't have passed it off as a mistake only because when you're dealing with information, with anything, at that level of importance, you don't make mistakes. Anything that sensitive, from my point of view, you get one shot at it. If you screw it up, you're history.

Carelessness at that level is even worse than doing it on purpose.
 
CDNBear
+1
#149
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I get what you're saying but I wouldn't have passed it off as a mistake only because when you're dealing with information, with anything, at that level of importance, you don't make mistakes. Anything that sensitive, from my point of view, you get one shot at it. If you screw it up, you're history.

Carelessness at that level is even worse than doing it on purpose.

True, but I was referring to my personal opinion of the man.

If he stuck to just revealing documents that exposed wrong doing, whether I liked it or not, I would have defended him, and respected him.

Since all he did was dump the intel, exposing third parties to reprisal, as well as to action data and planning. Combine with "they deserve it", he's a scumbag. And so is anyone that supports him or defends him for that.
 
mentalfloss
#150
Here's a "news" report from The Sun which also lends credibility to the idea that there was no real threat from the wikileaks releases. In fact, there are a few tidbits which show the releases are now making the military more open and transparent.

Worthington: Wikileaks no threat

As 2011 draws to a close, the issue of WikiLeaks disclosures remains to be resolved — a breach of trust to some, the right to know to others.

However, if one examines the record, it’s pretty hard to see much of a threat to American (or intentional) security, in the disclosures by WikiLeaks that has embarrassed allied governments.

In some ways, WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, who is fighting extradition from Britain to Sweden on accusations of rape and sexual assault, has performed a considerable service by revealing “leaked” analyses of what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The most graphic revelations seem to be that high command has covered up or sanitized certain unpleasant facts — more or less confirming what many journalists have suspected, speculated, and written about.

WikiLeaks has probed extrajudicial killings in Kenya, abuses at Guantanamo Bay, dumping of toxic waste off Africa, the release of diplomatic cables that embarass governments. And so on.

Newt Gingrich has called Assange “an information terrorist ... an enemy combatant.”

Amnesty International and others regard Assange admiringly.

Much of what WikiLeaks has “revealed” is in the public’s interest — a network that relies of whistleblowers. It is all mindful of Daniel Ellsburg, the U.S. defence department guy who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and was variously regarded as both a traitor and a folk-hero. So it is with Assange. Sort of.

There has been little (if anything) that reveals the identity of undercover agents or spies, or details that jeopardize lives. Most of what has been disclosed is information of which the enemy — i.e. the Taliban and al-Qaida — was quite aware.

Julian Assange does not seem very admirable, but nor he doesn’t seem much of a threat to security. One wonders if charges against him are real, or if they are manufactured to punish him for daring to use leaks?

Put bluntly, WikiLeaks seems to have contributed to the military’s oft-declared policy of openness and transparency, which is often more rhetorical than real.

The case of army intelligence analyst Pte. Bradley Manning is another matter.

Manning is facing court martial in the U.S. on charges of aiding the enemy and wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet by downloading thousands of classified military files and funneling the data to WikiLeaks.

If it’s hard to see the harm done by Assange and WikiLeaks, it’s also hard to see why the book should not be thrown at Manning. He’s the treacherous one — the one who betrayed his oath, and the army.

The army is justified in being upset that its e-mails and information it considers classified or secret are illicitly copied and funnelled to unauthorized people.

If found guilty, Manning could face life-imprisonment. If so, few tears will be shed. Meanwhile, Assange should escape charges that involve espionage.

Manning’s lawyers think their client was so obviously emotionally troubled with curious behaviour problems that his army superiors are at fault for not recognizing dysfunctional symptoms, and revoking or cancelling his security clearance.

As a defence strategy that seems hopeless — rather like the late Clifford Olson blaming the RCMP for his murder of several young people in B.C. because they didn’t arrest him sooner than they did.

Manning apparently tried to hide what he was doing by pretending online that he was a woman — Breanna Manning. To his apologists this indicates gender confusion, and a possible explanation for his treason. Rubbish.


Worthington: Wikileaks no threat | World | News | Toronto Sun
 

Similar Threads

8
Gun registry usless: rex murphy
by Nuggler | Sep 17th, 2011
3
brittany murphy rip
by spaminator | Dec 24th, 2009
no new posts