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

Goober
#1
Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo
Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange

We have not heard too much about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of late. This is quite a change from the volleys of support and praise that he received from various quarters when his website was regularly publishing classified diplomatic cables.

At the height of his fame, Assange was a hero to the left. But matters got more complicated — and his hero-halo dimmed — when it was alleged he committed sexual improprieties against two women in Sweden. At about the same time, some of the arrangements he had made to distribute WikiLeaks documents began to fall apart. Friends dropped off, donations declined, and even the Guardian newspaper, his earliest mainstream backer, took to writing critical appraisals.

But now that the alleged source of many of the most explosive WikiLeaks documents, U.S. Army soldier Bradley Manning, is being prosecuted, the Wikileaks-Assange saga has returned to the world stage, although at lower intensity.

From the very beginning of this cyberleak story, the question that interested me was: Who was Julian Assange and what gave him the moral authority to do what he did?

That others may suffer or be killed because of his revelations doesn’t seem to bother Assange very greatly. In one batch of documents, journalists were able to find the names and home villages of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to U.S. forces — thereby making them targets for Taliban reprisal. Assange early and chillingly dismissed those consequences as something beyond his control — or, famously, on American television, as “his” collateral damage.

My view of the WikiLeaks disclosures — leaving aside for the time being the Americans own vast carelessness over the files — is that they were absolutely wrong. The action was licensed only by Assange’s own massively arrogant assumption that he, Julian Assange, was somehow “entitled” to do so; that he was the Solon who could determine whether lives could be put at risk, relations between countries ruptured, names named, and life-and-death operations opened to all.

We have come to regard almost any and all actions against “the state” automatically as works of virtue and worthy of praise. But our esteem is, in many instances, deeply misplaced and fraught with mischief and peril. Assange is more fame-seeker and groupie-collector than he is a moral agent. We should not confuse Assange, or the immature, morally witless Bradley Manning, with Solhenitsyn or Sakharov. The great Russians were heros who faced imprisonment, torture and ostracism to tell the truth. Assange was taxed to summon the courage for an appearance on the Today Show, with the grand inquisitor Meredith Vierra.

It may come as a surprise to the excitable protestors of the West that not everything a democracy does is wrong; that the United States is not monolithically wicked; that rules and laws have some purpose other than to be broken on some callow individual’s own authority; or that every one who has a secret to spill is not necessarily motivated by conscience.

Assange was a very poor choice of hero from the beginning. He should have been shunned for his recklessness, rebuked for his arrogance, and held to account for the many lives he has either wrecked or put in jeopardy.
 
Kreskin
#2
like
 
Cliffy
+1 / -1
#3
Don't agree with Rex on this. But then most of his commentaries reek of his own arrogance. And then, he makes his living throwing stones so it is understandable.
 
Goober
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Don't agree with Rex on this. But then most of his commentaries reek of his own arrogance. And then, he makes his living throwing stones so it is understandable.

Then vote on your opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Don't agree with Rex on this. But then most of his commentaries reek of his own arrogance. And then, he makes his living throwing stones so it is understandable.

Hard for you to agree when you state he reeks of arrogance. Bias perhaps?
 
mentalfloss
+1
#5
Assange is responsible for innocent deaths?

And what's up with conservatives being so obsessed with 'the left'? It doesn't even make sense within the context of his slander as freedom of speech is a virtue of the right.
 
Cliffy
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Then vote on your opinion.

Hard for you to agree when you state he reeks of arrogance. Bias perhaps?

Don't get me wrong Goods. I like his style, his command of the English language, his turn of phrase. But his editorials do reek of arrogance simply because it is always critical of someone. To be critical of another is to be arrogant enough to think we know better. And yes, we all do it. I just found it funny that he accused Assange of arrogance.
 
mentalfloss
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Don't get me wrong Goods. I like his style, his command of the English language, his turn of phrase. But his editorials do reek of arrogance simply because it is always critical of someone. To be critical of another is to be arrogant enough to think we know better. And yes, we all do it. I just found it funny that he accused Assange of arrogance.

There is nothing wrong with being critical, but we don't see any evidence of that in this piece.
 
Cliffy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

There is nothing wrong with being critical, but we don't see any evidence of that in this piece.

Yes, judgemental would be more accurate. Fits better with the "let the one who hasn't sinned..." scenario.
 
Colpy
+3
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

There is nothing wrong with being critical, but we don't see any evidence of that in this piece.

HUH????

Are we reading the same piece???

Quote:

That others may suffer or be killed because of his revelations doesn’t seem to bother Assange very greatly. In one batch of documents, journalists were able to find the names and home villages of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to U.S. forces — thereby making them targets for Taliban reprisal. Assange early and chillingly dismissed those consequences as something beyond his control — or, famously, on American television, as “his” collateral damage.

If that ain't critical, then "critical" means something quite different from what I thought it did.......
 
mentalfloss
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

If that ain't critical, then "critical" means something quite different from what I thought it did.......

Whenever you play he said, she said, it's not critical analysis.

There is no mention of the number of deaths, let alone any deaths caused directly by the release of the documents.
 
Cliffy
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

HUH????

Are we reading the same piece???



If that ain't critical, then "critical" means something quite different from what I thought it did.......

Why should it bother him? 100,000 people died in Iraq because? How many have died in Afghanistan and Pakistan because? Could it be (we don't know for sure) that a few died because of the leaked info but many more did not, were spared because of the exposure of wrong doing on the part of the US and allies aggressions? Rex's diatribe reeks of finger pointing to divert attention from the real wrong doers. And wrong doers hate having the spotlight shone on them.
 
mentalfloss
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Why should it bother him? 100,000 people died in Iraq because?

Imagine if Assange could have revealed that there were no WMD's in Iraq back in 2003. We could have saved plenty more lives of our own countrymen from that wasted effort.
 
Colpy
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Whenever you play he said, she said, it's not critical analysis.

WTF!

There is no "he said, she said"....the idiot narcissist Assange exposed our allies and our own soldiers to risk.
 
mentalfloss
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

WTF!

There is no "he said, she said"....the idiot narcissist Assange exposed our allies and our own soldiers to risk.

What is the death count resulting from the release of these documents?
 
JLM
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Don't agree with Rex on this. But then most of his commentaries reek of his own arrogance. And then, he makes his living throwing stones so it is understandable.

I listen to him quite often on "Cross Country Checkup"- comes across to me as pretty humble.
 
Colpy
+3
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Imagine if Assange could have revealed that there were no WMD's in Iraq back in 2003. We could have saved plenty more lives of our own countrymen from that wasted effort.

You are not dealing with reality.

First of all, Saddam needed to go.

Secondly, it was Saddam himself that convinced us he had WMDs.....in an attempt to warn off Iran.

Thirdly, diplomacy can not be carried out in the open. The judgement of diplomats and intelligence officers on the options of other nations and the personalities involved need to be kept secret, if the gov't is to be able to carry on relationaships with other countries.

Fourth.....we were at WAR in Afghanistan. To expose our allies to threat, if not to death, not only destroys their lives.......but frightens away other possible intelligence sources, and makes us look weak and stupid in a society in which that alone can be fatal. Assange put OUR troops at risk. For those things I would have popped a 9mm bullet through his skull in a split second. He is our enemy.

Fifth....this weirdo, this piece of narcissistic scum, this dog is accused of RAPE, fer God's sake! Not yet convicted, but i hardly think Sweden is so under the US thumb that they are inventing ways for the US to get Assange. If he is guilty, and I don't doubt he is, may he get 10 years in Sweden.

I get extremely disgusted at the gall of the people that sit here in their comfy safe living rooms and clap their hands with delight with all the maturity of little girls shown a pony, at the idea that Manning and Assange have poked the great USA in the eye! Oh Such Heroes! While people fighting for YOU, on YOUR behalf, may be taking bullets because of these two self-involved, useless, idiotic and seditious pieces of shyte.

Get the feeling this pisses me off?

You'd be correct.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

What is the death count resulting from the release of these documents?

Who knows???

Even WITHOUT a death count, he put people at risk, shut down intelligence sources.

He is our ENEMY.

GEEZUS!

I gotta go to bed, before I have a ****ing aneurism.
 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I listen to him quite often on "Cross Country Checkup"- comes across to me as pretty humble.

You like RadioOne don't you?
 
mentalfloss
#18
Before you have an aneurysm (I typed this without reading your second post, lol), Colpy, I was simply responding to your assumption that lives were at risk. If there was such a serious threat stemming from these releases, then it would to stand to reason that some people could die as a direct result.

But no lives have been adversely affected since mid-2010.

Is this a problem for you?
 
JLM
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You like RadioOne don't you?

Some of it, Yes, other parts of it are garbage IMHO!
 
gerryh
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Before you have an aneurysm (I typed this without reading your second post, lol), Colpy, I was simply responding to your assumption that lives were at risk. If there was such a serious threat stemming from these releases, then it would to stand to reason that some people could die as a direct result.

But no lives have been adversely affected since mid-2010.

Is this a problem for you?


"Collateral damage" is only justifiable and allowed when it's the "good guys". Asange is a "bad guy" and therefore can not use that "get out of jail free" card.
 
petros
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Some of it, Yes, other parts of it are garbage IMHO!

Saturdays are best.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

it would to stand to reason that some people could die as a direct result.

I damn near did. I had trouble breathing from laughing for various reasons.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

"Collateral damage" is only justifiable and allowed when it's the "good guys". Asange is a "bad guy" and therefore can not use that "get out of jail free" card.

I just thought that being an ardent supporter of freedom of information pundits like Ezra.. means that you are an ardent supporter of information, but apparently that only counts in a religious context and not in political one?

I'm not sure, I'm just trying to see where the logic is here.

Ezra cares about freedom of information but he condemns Assange (who also cares about freedom of information).

This is logically inconsistent.
 
Cliffy
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post


This is logically inconsistent.

Of course it is. It is OK for the US and our other allies to endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands for no logical reason (is killing all these people to get one ******* logical? - Colpy seems to think so). There is no other reason to go to war than the profits made by a few rich *******s who are no more moral or less nasty that the one prick they went in to get under false pretenses.
 
JLM
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Saturdays are best.

Good music Saturday evenings, Sunday is good with Stuart McLean and Rex.
 
Cannuck
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Good music Saturday evenings, Sunday is good with Stuart McLean and Rex.


My name is Dave and I cooked my first Christmas turkey this year. I did a much better job.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Good music Saturday evenings, Sunday is good with Stuart McLean and Rex.

I've been to McLean a couple of times. It's even better to see him tell his stories live because of his mannerisms.

If you listen close you can hear me clapping.


http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/v...1224_77395.mp3
 
JLM
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I've been to McLean a couple of times. It's even better to see him tell his stories live because of his mannerisms.

If you listen close you can hear me clapping.


http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/v...1224_77395.mp3

I love his voice!
 
petros
#28
When he gets into his stories he gets up on his toes and flails his arms. The crowd gets right into to it and some even cry over the stories. It's cool. Travel if you need to but you'd really enjoy yourselfif you went to a recording.
 
JLM
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

When he gets into his stories he gets up on his toes and flails his arms. The crowd gets right into to it and some even cry over the stories. It's cool. Travel if you need to but you'd really enjoy yourselfif you went to a recording.

My sister has seen him several times. She thinks he's the greatest.
 
CDNBear
+3
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

There is no mention of the number of deaths, let alone any deaths caused directly by the release of the documents.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Before you have an aneurysm (I typed this without reading your second post, lol), Colpy, I was simply responding to your assumption that lives were at risk. If there was such a serious threat stemming from these releases, then it would to stand to reason that some people could die as a direct result.

But no lives have been adversely affected since mid-2010.

You might be right. But in all honesty, it would be quite difficult to prove any direct connection to Assange's actions.

But to be fair, anyone who thinks there has been no adverse reaction, or deaths caused by Assange's actions, doesn't have all their faculties.
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I just thought that being an ardent supporter of freedom of information pundits like Ezra.. means that you are an ardent supporter of information, but apparently that only counts in a religious context and not in political one?

I'm not sure, I'm just trying to see where the logic is here.

Ezra cares about freedom of information but he condemns Assange (who also cares about freedom of information).

This is logically inconsistent.

Speaking of consistent, you and Jesse Kline should probably identify what Ezra focused on in his condemnation. Comparing the Pentagon Papers, or Ezra's HRC trial, to what Assange has done, is idiotic.

Releasing names of Human rights workers and Afghan citizens aiding the Coalition Forces. Right down to their village and GPS coordinates. Does what to expose wrong doing?

Even Reporters without Borders doesn't believe that's journalistic whistle blowing.

But lets see what Assange thinks...

Quote:

'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'


Releasing details of technology used by Coalition Forces to prevent IED's from being detonated. Or diplomatic communiques discussing possible action in specific sectors. Isn't journalism. It's treason.

But Assange calls IED's "Rebel investment".

He isn't just accidentally aiding the other side, he's on the other side.

Again, comparing the publishing of the Pentagon Papers or Ezra's HRC trial, to what Assange has done, is idiotic.
Last edited by CDNBear; Dec 27th, 2011 at 07:18 AM..
 

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