Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not the one with a my hero on my watch.
And the double speak and hypocrisy of the media is worse than your spin how?
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 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.
I think they will, if there isn't already a sealed Grand Jury warrant already out there.
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.
Sure looks that way from here.
Ya, Levant is willing to risk himself. Assange, other people.
Ask me who I have more respect for.
Myself, and/or those that would stifle it.
I'll take logic, case law and facts over your lal la land thinking any day.
You haven't been keeping up on how they have gone off the grid.
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:
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?
Let's keep this simple. I have no issues with redacted, release of non troops in the field, material.
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.
When it comes to security, policy both affects and is affected by some form of threat.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
You posted a link that shows a threat directly related to Wikilinks?
I don't see it.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, it's already been established that you only acknowledge information that support your ideology. There is no need to continue highlighting it.
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.
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.