• 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!

Berkeley Mulls Resolution to Honor Army Private Accused of Leaks

I agree. The one thing I like about wikileaks is that it allows ME to read, without spin, what happened, what was said, etc. What media outlet can we say that about in the U.S. these days?


even if I liked that. I'd still want a bullet in assfaces face anus. :prof


Because not only are you reading it, so is the enemy.
 
I was just trying to speak your language, bro.

You went all philosophical on me, instead of just answering the question. Does that information warrant being known or not?

There was nothing philosophical about what I said. I merely pointed out that ends don't justify the means and two wrongs don't make a right.
 
There was nothing philosophical about what I said. I merely pointed out that ends don't justify the means and two wrongs don't make a right.

The problem is that I didn't ask if two wrongs made a right. I asked if the information warranted being shared with the American public. That's a yes or no question, not an essay, bro.
 
The problem is that I didn't ask if two wrongs made a right. I asked if the information warranted being shared with the American public. That's a yes or no question, not an essay, bro.

The answer has been given. You just don't like it or don't comprehend it. Either way, your question was answered.
 
The answer has been given. You just don't like it or don't comprehend it. Either way, your question was answered.

Please point out the answer in your response:
Hoy. Can you not see that the ends don't always justify the means?

So, what you're saying is that you're glad the information about this terrible wrongdoing came to light, but you're squeamish about the method? Did I accurately interpret your "hoy"?
 
Please point out the answer in your response:

That wasn't my initial response, this was:

Value to me and the right thing to do are two wholly separate issues. It's like walking in on your wife having an affair. When she see's you she exclaims "He gave me herpies and you probably have it to." Now, was it wrong of here to have the affair? Absolutely! Was it helpful for her to tell me about the herpies? Absolutely! Does that make the affair ok? Hell no!

So, what you're saying is that you're glad the information about this terrible wrongdoing came to light, but you're squeamish about the method? Did I accurately interpret your "hoy"?

No, you didn't get that from the "hoy" you got it from my first response and your characterization is lacking (I suspect intentionally).

It is absolutely wrong for this person to steal documents and release them, putting innocent people in harms way, so that the few documents that are worth releasing are found out by the world. Further, because of his method, the US will be absolved of all issues (serious or not). They will be absolved like Letterman was absolved when he was blackmailed. The world has a forgiving eye for those that are made the victim regardless of their wrongs.

So, no matter how you approach this, it was wrong for him to release this information. He is directly responsible for hurting people, he didn't accomplish his goals and he did it all in violation of the law. It was a triple lose.

Oh, and, because all this information was obtained illegally, companies like Dyncorp now have immunity for their crimes. Does that make you happy?
 
It is absolutely wrong for this person to steal documents and release them

Most people agree that it was wrong for Private Manning to leak classified documents.

putting innocent people in harms way,

Who was put in harm's way by leaking the cable about dyncorp?

There's a difference between leaking the documents and publishing them.

Further, because of his method, the US will be absolved of all issues (serious or not). They will be absolved like Letterman was absolved when he was blackmailed. The world has a forgiving eye for those that are made the victim regardless of their wrongs.

I see no evidence of this.

So, no matter how you approach this, it was wrong for him to release this information. He is directly responsible for hurting people, he didn't accomplish his goals and he did it all in violation of the law. It was a triple lose.

What laws did Assange violate?

Oh, and, because all this information was obtained illegally, companies like Dyncorp now have immunity for their crimes. Does that make you happy?

It doesn't work like that, bro. That's a check on governmental powers. The government (city, state, county, federal) cannot illegally collect evidence on you, in violation of your rights, and then prosecute you using that evidence. There are no such protections for the government. Dyncorp has zero immunity because these cables were leaked. :roll:

When you make comments like that, it makes me wonder if you understand the topic.
 
Most people agree that it was wrong for Private Manning to leak classified documents.



Who was put in harm's way by leaking the cable about dyncorp?

They Dyncorp employees that had absolutely nothing to do with/knowledge of the accused activities...of which the "evidence" is rather weak any way.

There's a difference between leaking the documents and publishing them.

No there isn't.

I see no evidence of this.



What laws did Assange violate?

Soliciting classified documents.


It doesn't work like that, bro. That's a check on governmental powers. The government (city, state, county, federal) cannot illegally collect evidence on you, in violation of your rights, and then prosecute you using that evidence. There are no such protections for the government. Dyncorp has zero immunity because these cables were leaked. :roll:

When you make comments like that, it makes me wonder if you understand the topic.

Actually, it does work like that. Because the person that leaked the information is a government employee and the people that would be held accountable do have rights, none of the information is useable.
 
They Dyncorp employees that had absolutely nothing to do with/knowledge of the accused activities...of which the "evidence" is rather weak any way.

Evidence to support this claim?

No there isn't.

Actually, there is. See Pentagon Papers.

Soliciting classified documents.

You mean Julian Assange personally contacted Private Manning and asked him to leak classified documents? That's what soliciting means.

Actually, it does work like that. Because the person that leaked the information is a government employee and the people that would be held accountable do have rights, none of the information is useable.

My god, why do I do this to myself?
 
Evidence to support this claim?

Really? You need proof that Dyncorp employees are damaged by accusations that may or may not be true?



Actually, there is. See Pentagon Papers.

Who is worse, the person that starts the rumor or the person that spreads the rumor?


You mean Julian Assange personally contacted Private Manning and asked him to leak classified documents? That's what soliciting means.

He actively solicited documents. Solicitation doesn't require person to person contact. Just the fact that he advertised is enough.

WikiLeaks said:
http://213.251.145.96/submissions.html

1. Material we accept
Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance.
 
Bradley Manning should be honored for doing his part to bring down the beast. On the other hand he should get life in prison for listening to Lady Gaga.
 
You didn't even read the linked document, did you? :roll:

Yes, I read it and it fits exactly with what I've said. I said that there is no evidence Dyncorp employees knew anything was happening. In fact:

Atmar then disclosed the arrest of two Afghan National Police (ANP) and nine other Afghans (including RTC language assistants) as part of an MoI investigation into Afghan "facilitators" of the event. The crime he was pursuing was "purchasing a service from a child,"

All Afghans, none of the Dyncorp employees. But I did say that the document could be harmful to the employees, and it can be...in two ways. One is they could become targets while in Afghanistan:

He continued to predict that publicity would "endanger lives."

And now your insistance that Dyncorp employees know of and were involved in the incident has damaged them the second way, which is their reputation.
 
I support WikiLeaks and this private 100%. I'm not a religious person... but God bless them all.
 
Back
Top Bottom