- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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?
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."
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.