• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked

Catz Part Deux said:
So you see zero value to the work that Assange has done in releasing information about more repressive regimes like Kenya and China? The world doesn't have a right to see that information? Our embarrassment trumps all?
Click to expand...

My issues lies strictly with a deliberate effort to undermine U.S. interests via disclosing strategic sites. That important U.S. interests were attacked is far more than a matter of "embarrassment." No sovereign state can or should allow others to undermine its critical interests with impunity. Neither should the U.S.

Perhaps I'm tired of our deterrence regime (aka being the bullies of the world). That's not our role in the world, or at least, it shouldn't be. I'm fairly certain our founding fathers didn't envision our current "deterrence regime."
Click to expand...

Deterrence is aimed at preventing something. It is not about bullying. If a country can reduce the risk of war e.g., through sustaining a balance of power that makes the possible rewards of aggression unattractive relative to the likely costs of aggression, then it is a worthy pursuit. If, in this case, the U.S. can take sufficiently decisive steps that discourage others from similarly disclosing sensitive sites without regard to whom the information might reach, then national security will be enhanced.

That Mr. Assange would dearly like to avoid being held accountable--indeed, he fears it given some of his recently expressed fears--does not mean that the nation should avoid doing so. The only relevant issues are that the nation's critical interests were undermined by the disclosure of the sites the nation considers "vita," and that every national government has a fundamental obligation to safeguard its critical interests. That such an obligation is inconvenient to Mr. Assange, e.g., he risks losing his freedom for a period of time, possibly a lengthy one, if he is convicted, is irrelevant. He took calculated risks masquerading as an advocate of media freedom in increasingly targeting critical U.S. interests, and the U.S. (or any other sovereign state whose critical interests might have been undermined) is not obligated to back off simply because he tried to create a convenient alibi to try to avoid accountability.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The danger of your government "protecting" you from terrorism by withholding crucial information is not remote. It is ongoing. A scared populace is a biddable and compliant populace. Say the word terrorism, and the American federal agencies now believe they can abuse any civil liberties and withold any information from the voters they are answerable to.
Click to expand...

The govt. isn't protecting anyone from terrorism. Terrorism isn't a problem. Once the federal monster is cut down to size there won't be a problem.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Well, we should absolutely look to them as a role model.

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

China is rising. America is declining. Even if America wanted it couldn't adopt the Chinese model.

America is following the Soviet model, except the collapse appears to be in slow motion. When the investment markets turn on America the collapse will be completed overnight.
 
donsutherland1 said:
My issues lies strictly with a deliberate effort to undermine U.S. interests via disclosing strategic sites. That important U.S. interests were attacked is far more than a matter of "embarrassment." No sovereign state can or should allow others to undermine its critical interests with impunity. Neither should the U.S.
Click to expand...
I note your use of the word ATTACKED. What sites were actually attacked? Or, are you simply peevish that we've been caught with our knickers around our ankles?

Let's use accurate words, shall we? Nothing has been attacked. Some not-very-sensitive but somewhat annoying and embarrassing information has been made public. We'll somehow manage to soldier on. This, situation, however, is not an attack. Calling it an attack is both unecessary hyperbole and inaccurate use of the English language.

Deterrence is aimed at preventing something. It is not about bullying. If a country can reduce the risk of war e.g., through sustaining a balance of power that makes the possible rewards of aggression unattractive relative to the likely costs of aggression, then it is a worthy pursuit. If, in this case, the U.S. can take sufficiently decisive steps that discourage others from similarly disclosing sensitive sites without regard to whom the information might reach, then national security will be enhanced.
Click to expand...

The U.S. has zero international right to police the release of information that we failed to secure. The only decisive steps that we should be taking are in cleaning up our classified systems and who has access to specific data sets.

That Mr. Assange would dearly like to avoid being held accountable--indeed, he fears it given some of his recently expressed fears--does not mean that the nation should avoid doing so.
Click to expand...

What laws has Julian Assange broken, Don, for which we should hold him accountable? We can argue that it was unethical and not very nice for him to release our classified files, but it does not appear to be illegal.

Thus, accountability lies with us, for leaving our asses flapping in the breeze.
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
China is rising. America is declining. Even if America wanted it couldn't adopt the Chinese model.
Click to expand...

Thank God for that. Would you seriously wish to adopt a system where you could be incarcerated for expressing concerns about the safety of the milk industry?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The danger of your government "protecting" you from terrorism by withholding crucial information is not remote. It is ongoing. A scared populace is a biddable and compliant populace. Say the word terrorism, and the American federal agencies now believe they can abuse any civil liberties and withold any information from the voters they are answerable to.

One might well ask why our media outlets aren't reporting these stories like they used to, back in the 1970s.
Click to expand...

You mean like with global warmage?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Thank God for that. Would you seriously wish to adopt a system where you could be incarcerated for expressing concerns about the safety of the milk industry?
Click to expand...

.......and they say american liberals/leftists hate america. Imagine the idea!
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I note your use of the word ATTACKED. What sites were actually attacked? Or, are you simply peevish that we've been caught with our knickers around our ankles?
Click to expand...

The sites weren't attacked; U.S. interests were. He exposed the sites to increased risk by publicizing them as being strategic to the U.S. In doing so, he attacked U.S. interests.

The U.S. has zero international right to police the release of information that we failed to secure.
Click to expand...

The source of U.S. authority to safeguard its interests comes from the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing that prohibits the U.S. from taking appropriate measures to safeguard its critical interests. My guess is that some of those measures will become evident in coming weeks and months.

What laws has Julian Assange broken, Don, for which we should hold him accountable?
Click to expand...

The U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice are reviewing the legal aspects of that matter. The recent attempt at blackmail likely constitutes one example where there is little ambiguity. Potential cases of wire and financial fraud probably offer a rich range of possible charges.

We can argue that it was unethical and not very nice for him to release our classified files, but it does not appear to be illegal.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, we'll find out whether your description is accurate (if he is not convicted) or whether, in fact, his actions were illegal. For now, he's merely at the beginning of his legal issues. Those will very likely multiply in coming weeks. That he may have committed financial fraud in setting up his financing apparatus e.g., as in the case in Switzerland where he knowingly made a false claim of Swiss residence, is one line of legal recourse.

Thus, accountability lies with us, for leaving our asses flapping in the breeze.
Click to expand...

Of course, the U.S. also bears some responsibility. The idea that instructions to diplomats to conduct surveillance (widespread in the diplomatic realm) were put in writing is rank amateur work. Traditionally, those matters are kept covert. Instructions are not recorded in any fashion. The excessive access to classified information among government civilian and military personnel and contractors is another huge issue. Be that as it may, those issues do not confer on Mr. Assange immunity for his actions. In fact, my guess is that it is probably more likely than not that Mr. Assange will ultimately be imprisoned, and not solely on sex-related charges.
 
Dutch said:
.......and they say american liberals/leftists hate america. Imagine the idea!
Click to expand...

What are you yammering about now? Are you unaware that the Chinese government just incarcerated a man for speaking out against the tainted milk that killed his son?

Would you like to see us turn into a fascist regime with zero free speech where the Government tells us what we can know?
 
ptif219 said:
Must be something since the US is seeking extradition.

How the U.S. can now extradite Assange - WikiLeaks - Salon.com
Click to expand...

From your link...

Attorney Douglas McNabb, who specializes in federal criminal defense and international extradition cases, says that extradition requests can also be made under seal. And he has had clients who have been the subject of Interpol Red Notices -- the international call for arrest that Sweden used to pursue Assange last week -- that have not been released publicly. So it's possible that the U.S. is already using these avenues.
Click to expand...

Note that they italisized the word "possible" in that paragraph. So depsite your assertion that the US is seeking extradition you don't know for sure. You just know that it is possible that they might be.

There is a big difference between "possible" and "is".
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
The danger in our society is NOT that the terrorists will get their hands on information. The danger is that the American public WON'T.

What separates us from Kenya or China or Cuba if average Americans aren't entitled to the truth about our government's actions and dirty deals?
Click to expand...

I know. I am really disturbed by the willful ignorance we are seeing. The militantism is getting out of hand and the government is gaining way too much power because of it.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The sites weren't attacked; U.S. interests were. He exposed the sites to increased risk by publicizing them as being strategic to the U.S. In doing so, he attacked U.S. interests.
Click to expand...

Oh. So, by talking about factories and oil refineries and whatnot, he attacked our interests. Is that illegal?

Tell me, Don. Do you really think that the entities which mean us harm are unaware of our vulnerabilities?

The source of U.S. authority to safeguard its interests comes from the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing that prohibits the U.S. from taking appropriate measures to safeguard its critical interests. My guess is that some of those measures will become evident in coming weeks and months.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, those appropriate measures should be taken internally, and should not include brandishing the sword of threatened prosecution at a non-U.S. citizen who hasn't violated our laws and isn't accountable to them, anyway. That just makes us look rather pathetic.

The U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice are reviewing the legal aspects of that matter. The recent attempt at blackmail likely constitutes one example where there is little ambiguity. Potential cases of wire and financial fraud probably offer a rich range of possible charges.
Click to expand...

Well, we'll all be waiting with bated breath to see the outcome of your legal accumen.

Ultimately, we'll find out whether your description is accurate (if he is not convicted) or whether, in fact, his actions were illegal. For now, he's merely at the beginning of his legal issues. Those will very likely multiply in coming weeks. That he may have committed financial fraud in setting up his financing apparatus e.g., as in the case in Switzerland where he knowingly made a false claim of Swiss residence, is one line of legal recourse.
Click to expand...

Yes, by all means, we should silence all sources of information and embarrassment by pressuring our allies into prosecuting Assange.

Of course, the U.S. also bears some responsibility. The idea that instructions to diplomats to conduct surveillance (widespread in the diplomatic realm) were put in writing is rank amateur work. Traditionally, those matters are kept covert. Instructions are not recorded in any fashion. The excessive access to classified information among government civilian and military personnel and contractors is another huge issue. Be that as it may, those issues do not confer on Mr. Assange immunity for his actions. In fact, my guess is that it is probably more likely than not that Mr. Assange will ultimately be imprisoned, and not solely on sex-related charges.
Click to expand...

We are all guessing, regardless.
 
Orion said:
I know. I am really disturbed by the willful ignorance we are seeing. The militantism is getting out of hand and the government is gaining way too much power because of it.
Click to expand...

There is willful ignorance to go around. Assange is not some good guy doing a service to the world as some think, he is some one working to harm the US, attempting high stakes blackmail and possibly more. I would think twice before throwing out phrases like "willful ignorance".
 
Redress said:
There is willful ignorance to go around. Assange is not some good guy doing a service to the world as some think, he is some one working to harm the US, attempting high stakes blackmail and possibly more. I would think twice before throwing out phrases like "willful ignorance".
Click to expand...

And if CNN, or Fox were the ones releasing the details? What would you say then?

Assange is a convenient scapegoat for information that makes you feel uncomfortable. That's not anyone's problem but your own. I think the benefits to transparency and democracy far outweigh the risks of the information. The fact that freedom of speech and the press matters less to you than some vendetta against this guy is very telling.

I am not saying Assange is some angel, so don't put words in my mouth. I am saying he has the right to do what he is doing and the U.S. has no business trying to twist international law to stop him. Though it will obviously try, because it is a sovereign state actor trying to preserve its own interests.

High stakes blackmail? Care to elaborate on that one?
 
Orion said:
And if CNN, or Fox were the ones releasing the details? What would you say then?

Assange is a convenient scapegoat for information that makes you feel uncomfortable. That's not anyone's problem but your own. I think the benefits to transparency and democracy far outweigh the risks of the information. The fact that freedom of speech and the press matters less to you than some vendetta against this guy is very telling.

I am not saying Assange is some angel, so don't put words in my mouth. I am saying he has the right to do what he is doing and the U.S. has no business trying to twist international law to stop him. Though it will obviously try, because it is a sovereign state actor trying to preserve its own interests.

High stakes blackmail? Care to elaborate on that one?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would treat them the same if they acted the same.

Blackmail: BBC News - Wikileaks' Julian Assange to fight Swedish allegations

Mr Stephens warned that the organisation held further secret material which it regarded as a "thermo-nuclear device" to be released if it needs to protect itself.
Click to expand...
 
donsutherland said:
Ultimately, we'll find out whether your description is accurate (if he is not convicted) or whether, in fact, his actions were illegal. For now, he's merely at the beginning of his legal issues. Those will very likely multiply in coming weeks. That he may have committed financial fraud in setting up his financing apparatus e.g., as in the case in Switzerland where he knowingly made a false claim of Swiss residence, is one line of legal recourse.
Click to expand...



Catz Part Deux said:
Yes, by all means, we should silence all sources of information and embarrassment by pressuring our allies into prosecuting Assange.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Switzerland is not going to prosecute him for lying about his residence when he opened the PostFinance account. The banking branch of the Swiss Post Office simply closed the Wikileaks account and terminated its business relationship with him. Nothing more will come of it.
 
Orion said:
High stakes blackmail? Care to elaborate on that one?
Click to expand...

I think that Redress is referring to what Assange has referred to as "insurance," a 1+gigabyte file of additional material on U.S. actions in Afghanistan that Assange has threatened to release if he is "disappeared."
 
Catz Part Deux said:
What are you yammering about now? Are you unaware that the Chinese government just incarcerated a man for speaking out against the tainted milk that killed his son?

Would you like to see us turn into a fascist regime with zero free speech where the Government tells us what we can know?
Click to expand...

Let's see if I get the "gist" of your argument, to wit; unless the united states allow secret and or confidential military and diplomatic papers open to the entire world (that includes al qaeda) the us will start incarcerating men who speak out against tainted milk? Is that your point? Really? I tell ya' what. I think the us is actually capable of protecting it's secrets, (well, perhaps not this regime) it's immature to simply think nations should not have them, and still allow men or even women to speak out against poisonous products. I actually think we can do both. Naturally I would think this, I'm a conservative. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
Let's see if I get the "gist" of your argument, to wit; unless the united states allow secret and or confidential military and diplomatic papers open to the entire world (that includes al qaeda) the us will start incarcerating men who speak out against tainted milk? Is that your point? Really?
Click to expand...

No, sorry. You missed the gist of my argument. But, you did get the font correct, so that's progress.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I think that Redress is referring to what Assange has referred to as "insurance," a 1+gigabyte file of additional material on U.S. actions in Afghanistan that Assange has threatened to release if he is "disappeared."
Click to expand...

Wouldn't anyone in Assaunge's position do the same thing?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Wouldn't anyone in Assaunge's position do the same thing?
Click to expand...

Not really, no. It's called blackmail: do what we want or else we will tell people bad stuff about you. I like to think most people have a sense of morality.
 
Redress said:
Not really, no. It's called blackmail: do what we want or else we will tell people bad stuff about you. I like to think most people have a sense of morality.
Click to expand...

Really. So you're saying that the U.S. wouldn't disappear him if it was believed to serve our best interests? And, concern about this wouldn't be normal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom