Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    I had to laugh last night watching the news. Talking about the UK police knowing where he was, they showed an archive clip of Assange in a city street. As the voiceover said "He is currently living somewhere in Southeast England", onscreen a big red London bus went by in the background...
    Lol, I've seen a lot of archival footage of him lately, are you sure this wasn't in kind?

  2. #42
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,324

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

    Quote Originally Posted by SirPwn4lot View Post
    I brought up a lot in my above comment. I'm still wondering how this is a good connection Beck forms between Wikileaks and George Soros, and why this matters.
    Beck is a curious dude, I think he is trying to figure out what is going on in the world just like the rest of us. But, it is interesting that a man like Soros would be either knowingly, or unwittingly helping an Anarchist like Assange that self describes his motives for releasing this materiel as intentionally causing chaos. It is a Soros playbook.

    I also wanted to know how one can justify wanting to put him on trial for treason. I stated some reasons below.
    I would think they were talking about PFC Bradley Manning, and not Assange. Assange's charges would more likely be espionage.

    I asked for specific examples of the information he released causing specific loss of life.
    I see, so if they don't happen immediately then no harm, no foul? is that it?

    Addressing the above comment you made, for one I don't see how this is in any way an indictment of Assange in a legal or moral sense, should we despise every CEO, politician, head of organization, etc, etc who dodges a question? Secondly, Assange has gotten this question an almost ridiculous amount of times, albeit in a different context (not specifically the Balkans), but I don't see how it would change the response. The man still doesn't point out HOW the information released will mess with international relations and aid negotiations SPECIFICALLY.

    Did you read the question? The diplomat laid it out quite clearly.

    Furthermore, even if it does mess up international relations and stop negotiations, I still believe (at this time) that he has a right to post it. This wasn't an American leak of any sorts on Wikileak's part. He wasn't an American citizen and Wikileaks is hosted offshore. NUMEROUS other sources have shared the same information. Wikileaks is another REPORTER like the New York Times, a large majority of news media, and websites that have reuploaded the documents. Wikileaks didn't "leak" the documents any more than the mainstream media did. If you want to blame someone go and run campaigns against leaks in the military/government. THEY have a responsibility that they take on when they sign up for the military. Charge THEM with whatever appropriate according to law.
    Bradley Manning is being charged. But I find it interesting that you find no moral problem with just posting anything out there just because you can.

    If you want to hold Wikileaks accountable I don't see how you can give the rest of the news media a pass.
    Who says I do? I have long railed against the NYTimes for blabbing secrets that aided our enemies. In that sense they work against their own country.


    Additionally, the media gives coverage to serial killers all the time, it's absolutely beyond dispute that the media attention they gain at least partially motivates some killers. Does this mean they should be arrested for printing it? Speech shouldn't be stopped unless it in itself causes direct harm, or directly incites it. For example, calling on people to murder another, yelling bomb on a crowded plane, etc. Indirect violence caused by speech (such as reporting serial killer crimes, releasing information on innocent civilians killed by the United States which enrages local populations, etc) I do not believe warrants censorship.
    No one is talking censorship. It would be nice though if ethics were displayed.

    If I had my way every ex-president alive would have some SERIOUS investigations placed over them delving into violations of international and domestic law. And I like it that way. Those in power need the greatest checks on their actions.

    Thanks.
    You're welcome. Are you an Anarchist as well?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #43
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    helping an Anarchist like Assange that self describes his motives for releasing this materiel as intentionally causing chaos.


    He's a libertarian, which is like the opposite of an Anarchist, and he has plainly stated that he thinks accountability is good for the market, both for consumers and capitalists alike.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  4. #44
    I invented Human Nature
    Z3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    05-13-12 @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,251

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post


    He's a libertarian, which is like the opposite of an Anarchist, and he has plainly stated that he thinks accountability is good for the market, both for consumers and capitalists alike.
    ???

    Anarchism is an extension of libertarian thought. Whether it is market anarchism or classical anarchism.
    Don't tread on me= Don't tread on my corporate masters

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

    Accepting stolen property is not "freedom of speech". Publishing information stolen from a government, marked as "Classified" and "Secret", is not freedom of speech.

    Assange the sorry Aussie needs to get bitch-slapped for at least the next 20 years, working in a prison laundry somewhere, sleeping in a tiny bed. Then doing it again the next day.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

    Quote Originally Posted by Z3n

    Anarchism is an extension of libertarian thought. Whether it is market anarchism or classical anarchism.
    Libertarianism is the opposite of Anarchism because libertarianism is the culmination of the universality of private property whereas Anarchism calls for its complete abolishment. "Market anarchism" has absolutely nothing in common with "Classical anarchism" aside from perhaps similar rhetoric.

    Further, Anarchists would consider libertarianism a form of fascism, as would most that support the abolishment of private property (Marxists and other non-Marxian socialists).

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce
    Accepting stolen property is not "freedom of speech".
    Leaked information is not stolen property.

    Publishing information stolen from a government, marked as "Classified" and "Secret", is not freedom of speech.
    On the contrary, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) set a legal precedent that states that it is.
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 12-03-10 at 08:41 PM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Beck is a curious dude, I think he is trying to figure out what is going on in the world just like the rest of us. But, it is interesting that a man like Soros would be either knowingly, or unwittingly helping an Anarchist like Assange that self describes his motives for releasing this materiel as intentionally causing chaos. It is a Soros playbook.
    You didn't address how this is a valid "connection" to Soros, nor how a connection to Soros, if it existed, makes Assange worse. I honestly have no idea what Beck is trying to do here, it just seems like blind character assassination by association. He did this to President-Elect Obama, to his wife, to anyone he wants to get fired in the administration... I don't see what's so bad about being connected to George Soros. Can you please enlighten me?



    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I would think they were talking about PFC Bradley Manning, and not Assange. Assange's charges would more likely be espionage.
    The Espionage Act has never been successfully employed against any sort of media organization. Review by the courts has stated that "imminent lawless action" is required to be shown by the prosecution [Brandenburg v. Ohio]

    True, Eric Holder is considering charging Assange under the act, but whether it would succeed or not is extremely sketchy. If anything it would bring up the question of the constitutionality of the act, which would be a good thing. Again, I am opposed to the law, but I still respect it. One sometimes must drink hemlock for the rule of law.


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I see, so if they don't happen immediately then no harm, no foul? is that it?
    You can't throw blame at Wikileaks for causing harm if no harm has yet been caused. The most you can say is that it "might cause harm", and even that you have to justify. Go and look at the files they've released, find some stuff that could potentially cause harm, then come back and I'll accept that the release "might cause harm".


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Did you read the question? The diplomat laid it out quite clearly.
    Yes, and I denounce his answer. However, I don't see how this is a scathing indictment of the man. People dodge questions all the time. Did you watch the 2008 elections? Barrack Obama and John McCain? Those two dodged every second question thrown at them. Sarah Palin? Don't even get me started on Sarah Palin dodging questions... The fact is, I could likely find a similar instance for every person alive. If I searched hard enough I'm sure I could find an instance of Mother Teresa dodging a question. What's your point. I neglect to see how this example separates him in any way from the rest of the population.


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Bradley Manning is being charged. But I find it interesting that you find no moral problem with just posting anything out there just because you can.
    I know he's being charged, but he's not the source of the entire leak, and certainly not the source of all of Wikileaks' leaks. They have been at this for years. The United States is only one small area of their work. There are laws against military personnel leaking classified material, charge them as appropriate. I have a Socratic view on law.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Who says I do? I have long railed against the NYTimes for blabbing secrets that aided our enemies. In that sense they work against their own country.
    In that very same program Glenn Beck spread the content of those leaks, almost every commentator on Fox, every commentator on MSNBC, most of the print media, and the majority of world media have spread the content of the leaks. Glenn Beck even boasted how they validated some of his predictions. I don't see how spreaders of the material being overseas negates their repsonsibility according to your position, after all, Wikileaks is hosted overseas. Do you want to charge all these people? I personally viewed and downloaded parts of the Afghan War Logs and sent quotes around to my friends. Does this mean I should be arrested?

    I don't see how Wikileaks being the second party to spread the material makes them more guilty than the third, forth, fifth, or millionth party.

    ALSO, you said that these aid the US's enemies... please provide a specific instance...


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No one is talking censorship. It would be nice though if ethics were displayed.
    You want to arrest someone for spreading information. That information is therefore censored...

    "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."



    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    You're welcome. Are you an Anarchist as well?
    I dislike labels. Ask me about some issues and I'll give you my opinions. I respect the rule of law, if Assange is guilty of something then charge him as appropriate, that doesn't stop be disagreeing with it, nor does it make me an anarchist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Assange the sorry Aussie needs to get bitch-slapped for at least the next 20 years, working in a prison laundry somewhere, sleeping in a tiny bed. Then doing it again the next day.
    I am astounded that people just assume that he's guilty and desire him to be imprisoned. At the most don't you want him to go through a fair trial and accept the consequences?
    Last edited by SirPwn4lot; 12-04-10 at 03:24 AM. Reason: Adding stuff...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •