• 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!

Lawyers cry foul over leak of Julian Assange sex-case papers

yeah..I'm sure this douchebag's motivation for leaking classified govt documents was a desire to do good. :roll:

Just because you may not like what he did does not mean he did not do it for the right reasons.

They're not government and are not accountable to anyone but their owners. It's no one's business what goes on internally.

Really? If a company were dumping chemical waste upstream from a town it would be no one's business? I am sure you will say that is different, but if it is really so horrible to leak information from them then such an incident would only be exposed after it has done sufficient damage to be noticed. Were a car company cutting corners to preserve profits by using inferior equipment that is certainly something one would want to know about before there is an incident and that would likely require someone leaking said information.

And Assange's intentions are much more in line with the latter than they are the former.

How so?
 
Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.
[/morpheus]
 
How awesome is irony?
 
Really? If a company were dumping chemical waste upstream from a town it would be no one's business? I am sure you will say that is different, but if it is really so horrible to leak information from them then such an incident would only be exposed after it has done sufficient damage to be noticed. Were a car company cutting corners to preserve profits by using inferior equipment that is certainly something one would want to know about before there is an incident and that would likely require someone leaking said information.

There's no indication whatsoever that said information will be incriminating in any respect. Pretty much none of these diplomatic cables were.

You assume wrongdoing with no reason, at all.

And by THIS standard, he's really got NO cause to complain here, because it's specifically about criminal wrongdoing. So, as you say, why shouldn't we know about it?



Read his perosnal history and his own comments on the matter.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure his political affiliation was not presented in his post. But I suppose anyone you disagree with is a "leftie", probably a commie too, hates America too.
Honest answer: it really depends on what I disagree with them over. If it's someone who's constant gripe is that the US is just evil and exploits 3rd world nations, blah, blah, blah, then yes, I do question their affinity for this country.
 
irony_tshirt.jpg
 
There's no indication whatsoever that said information will be incriminating in any respect. Pretty much none of these diplomatic cables were.

You assume wrongdoing with no reason, at all.

And by THIS standard, he's really got NO cause to complain here, because it's specifically about criminal wrongdoing. So, as you say, why shouldn't we know about it?

Actually there is plenty of wrongdoing revealed on the part of the U.S. and the part of other countries as well. It need not be criminal to be information that should be revealed.

Read his perosnal history and his own comments on the matter.

His words prove that his motivation is to do good.
 
Just because you may not like what he did does not mean he did not do it for the right reasons.

Except looking at the leaked documents shows your assement to be off. Are you suggesting every leaked document shows an example of wrongdoing?

Really? If a company were dumping chemical waste upstream from a town it would be no one's business?

If an individual was dumping chemical waste upstream from a town would it be no one's business?

Someone doing illegal activity, be it a corporation or a singular person, is the governments business. People doing LEGAL things, be them as a group (Such a corporation) or as an individual entity, is not.

Your attempted example doesn't prove your point at all.

And all you're doing with the rest of your post is coming up with rationalizations and excuses for why its okay for SOME private entities to be leaked about but why other private entites shouldn't. You're doing this because you made a retarded claim and got called out on it so you're flailing wildly as you try to back peddle to cover up your ridiculous argument.
 
As disgusting as his private life is, if the reports are true, and perhaps there are criminal charges there, I do not think he broke any US laws for leaking classified US documents. The irony is thick, however.
 
Except looking at the leaked documents shows your assement to be off. Are you suggesting every leaked document shows an example of wrongdoing?

Every document? Probably not, but those are more likely to be the ones that cannot even be construed as harmful.

If an individual was dumping chemical waste upstream from a town would it be no one's business?

Someone doing illegal activity, be it a corporation or a singular person, is the governments business. People doing LEGAL things, be them as a group (Such a corporation) or as an individual entity, is not.

Your attempted example doesn't prove your point at all.

Except it does as the poster insisted that leaking information from private corporations was no different than leaking information about a private individual. I can think of plenty of possibilities where something should be exposed about a private corporation despite being technically legal.

And all you're doing with the rest of your post is coming up with rationalizations and excuses for why its okay for SOME private entities to be leaked about but why other private entites shouldn't. You're doing this because you made a retarded claim and got called out on it so you're flailing wildly as you try to back peddle to cover up your ridiculous argument.

I don't know what you are talking about there. My argument is simply that private corporations should not be equated with private individuals.
 
Every document? Probably not, but those are more likely to be the ones that cannot even be construed as harmful.

The diplomatic cables revealed pretty much no wrongdoing.

Except it does as the poster insisted that leaking information from private corporations was no different than leaking information about a private individual. I can think of plenty of possibilities where something should be exposed about a private corporation despite being technically legal.

Oh? What are these "plenty of possibilities"? Let's see them. And then explain exactly why it's anyone's business except theirs.

And you seem to have ignored that in this case, with this "private individual," the leaked papers concerned criminal activity.

Nope, this douche doesn't have a leg to stand on to complain about it when the whole world laughs in his face.


I don't know what you are talking about there. My argument is simply that private corporations should not be equated with private individuals.

They're both private and not accountable to YOU.
 
His words prove that his motivation is to do good.

Then you either have a very limited scope of what he's said, or you have a warped definition of "good."
 
Apparently, he can't even **** without leaking.

Heh:

Speaking from the English mansion where he is confined on bail, the 39-year-old Australian said that the decision to publish incriminating police files about him was "disgusting". The Guardian had previously used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

Awwwwwww.


Mr Assange is understood to be particularly angry with a senior reporter at the paper and former friend for "selectively publishing" incriminating sections of the police report, although The Guardian made clear that the WikiLeaks founder was given several days to respond.

Mr Assange claimed the newspaper received leaked documents from Swedish authorities or "other intelligence agencies" intent on jeopardising his defence.

"The leak was clearly designed to undermine my bail application," he said. "Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison."

Oh boo hoo hoody-hoo.


Meanwhile, he's promising:

Mr Assange said he had enough material ready to destroy the bosses of one of the world’s biggest banks.
 
Mr Assange said he had enough material ready to destroy the bosses of one of the world’s biggest banks.

Good thing he is too honorable to stoop to such tactics to try and get his way.(sarcasm intended)
 
Julian Assange is a bad ass. He has enough evidence to incriminate Bank of America. People are afraid of him because he is a true libertarian and wants to expose corruption wherever it lies.
 
Julian Assange is a bad ass. He has enough evidence to incriminate Bank of America. People are afraid of him because he is a true libertarian and wants to expose corruption wherever it lies.

LOL, your pathetic, sex-crazed hero will be dead within a year. And the one thing I do like about him is he's exposing the far left for what they are. Even many lefties are struggling to understand why their brethren are defending this douche.
 
Julian Assange is a bad ass. He has enough evidence to incriminate Bank of America.

So people keep saying. Yet, where is it?


People are afraid of him because he is a true libertarian and wants to expose corruption wherever it lies.

He's managing to do that, only not quite in the places he expected or that you and your ilk are hoping for.
 
LOL, your pathetic, sex-crazed hero will be dead within a year. And the one thing I do like about him is he's exposing the far left for what they are. Even many lefties are struggling to understand why their brethren are defending this douche.

He's not my hero by any streatch of the imgaination. I would just like to point out that while he "might" be dead within a year wikileaks will not be. They will continue to do the work that is necessary.
 
LOL, your pathetic, sex-crazed hero will be dead within a year. And the one thing I do like about him is he's exposing the far left for what they are. Even many lefties are struggling to understand why their brethren are defending this douche.

Is that how you are spinning that this issue seems to transcend partisanship?
 
Michael Frikken Moore wants to put up part of his bail. Doesn't that pretty much show which end of the political spectrum is more likely in Assange's camp?
 
Michael Frikken Moore wants to put up part of his bail. Doesn't that pretty much show which end of the political spectrum is more likely in Assange's camp?

Assange, Moore, Olbermann, Maddow, Penn, Glover, Pelosi, Reid, Obama

They're all cut from the same cloth. Bitter, egomaniacal, hateful, political grandstanders.
 
Assange, Moore, Olbermann, Maddow, Penn, Glover, Pelosi, Reid, Obama

They're all cut from the same cloth. Bitter, egomaniacal, hateful, political grandstanders.

I just wanted to point this post out, since posts like this make liberals look good.
 
Back
Top Bottom