Bingo!
The case law on the matter is quite clear.
Only the morally bankrupt defend Assange releasing names of CI's.
Yes we do, even Assange acknowledges that.
Again, I can understand how you would want to ignore that.
Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
The case law on the matter is quite clear.
Only the morally bankrupt defend Assange releasing names of CI's.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed.
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:
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.
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...:roll:
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.
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
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
You don't express yourself as if you do get that.
Flavour? Hmm, ok. Well, put your money where your mouth is then. We have an open forum here, why don't you just post your full name, address, SIN, and for good measure toss in your credit card number as well.
Look bottom line here, it is not the end result that defines the ethical implication of the initial action. That's specious reasoning.
This is the same argument the oil pundits push when they hear about global warming. It basically amounts to "plant a tree or give up believing in AGW."
It doesn't work.
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, it does 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
You just don't get it do you?
That's now, hindsight is always 20/20.
When Assange revealed that data, he understood that it could place them in harms way, his reply when asked, "they deserve it".
Intent applied.
As SLM exampled previous, just because you make it home with a BAC well over the legal limit, doesn't mean you haven't committed a crime.
Only the morally bankrupt, hypocrite, ideologues seem to have a problem understanding that.
Yes, I would have defended him and his actions as well. I do respect someone who puts their neck on the line to further a cause that they believe in. Where it crosses the line for me is when it endangers others, even if only potentially.
I'm sure Assange has said a lot of things, but I'm more concerned with the real effect of the release than what he said.
If I had my finger on the doomsday button and hit it but the machine failed, it wouldn't make much difference even if I wanted to blow up the whole world.
They would confine me access from a doomsday machine and we would call it a day.
No you aren't. You're more concerned with ignoring law, principle and morals, to further support your biases.
As I already pointed out, your condemnation of the Sun over publishing something that to many, is well within the public interest. Stands in stark contrast to your defense of Assange, who knowingly put people in harms way, whether it materialized or not.
You should pick a principle and stick to it.
I agree that there are laws and they could be enforced after a release occurs, but they would have to prove a legitimate threat in order to have the appropriate punishment enacted.
And here we are right back to only two spots on the spectrum again. Square peg will not fit into a round hole no matter how hard you try.
What you are saying, what I am hearing from you, is that the only deciding factor in why an action would be considered wrong is whether or not it causes damage. What I am saying, what I think you are refusing to hear, is that it is the action itself that carries the moral implication.