• 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!

Assange Speaks to UN

No, it looks the same. Why did the US kill a 3 billion Afghans?
 
cpwill said:
dude. in the intel field, thats their job. asking whether or not an intel E3 has access to the secured networks is like asking if an infantry E3 has access to an M16.
Click to expand...

Thats not the point. I'm questioning the LEVEL and the VOLUME of information that Manning exposed. If we're supposed to believe that he had the same clearance and acces as the director of CIA, then I call bull****.
 
Ummm...you aren't supposed to believe that. It's SIPRnet, dude.
 
apdst said:
Thats not the point. I'm questioning the LEVEL and the VOLUME of information that Manning exposed. If we're supposed to believe that he had the same clearance and acces as the director of CIA, then I call bull****.
Click to expand...

I can tell your Army service wasn't in Intel. He didnt have the same access as the director of CIA. But he did have access to SIPR and apparently JWICS, as most in Intel, even an E-1, would. I have over a decade with DIA under my belt. cpwill sounds like he has an intel background. We know what we are talking about, man.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Sure they did. If wikileaks was actually interested in total transparency, they'd reveal their "insurance" documents- those that they've threatened to release if Assange were ever tried. But they're not, because they believe in secrecy to advance their own purposes. Just like the governments they wish to repudiate.
Click to expand...

They're not holding those documents because they believe in secrecy. They are holding them to try and keep Assaunge out of jail.
 
cpwill said:
Alot of the material in there actively degraded US efforts to stabilize chaotic regions of the world - to include source names. Oddly, some of the most active downloaders were located in Central Asia, and some of those sources started disappearing shortly thereafter.

Mind you, we found some of them again. A piece here, a piece there....
Click to expand...

Again...proof?
 
Kal'Stang said:
No he is not a rapist. The women that he supposedly "raped" consented. Even they did not want charges pressed. The prosecutor took it upon herself to press charges.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the prosecution of crimes was left up to victims. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Sarcogito said:
I can tell your Army service wasn't in Intel. He didnt have the same access as the director of CIA. But he did have access to SIPR and apparently JWICS, as most in Intel, even an E-1, would. I have over a decade with DIA under my belt. cpwill sounds like he has an intel background. We know what we are talking about, man.
Click to expand...
So, what your sayinh is that there are no controls in place to protect this information and there is no such thing as "need to know"?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I got news for you. I served durng the vietnam/american war period 64-67,, honorable discharge, good conduct, spec 5, so I earned the right to live here and exercise my free speech. I have a better idea. Why don't you leave since you hate free speech.
Click to expand...

I don't hate free speech. I just hate one sided, political rhetoric - most of it developed by Noam Chomsky - passed off as meanignful political dialogue.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Who's? And what if it was? What would be the significance of that?

Are you implying that people should prize what's good for journalism over what's good for the federal government? Wouldn't that just be subjectively preferential?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is implying that. The first amendment says it pretty explicitly. The press is free. Always. (Okay, mostly always. But it's specifically free to do things like this.)

digsbe said:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to steal classified documents and publish classified materials that may impact national security. Manning should remain in jail.
Click to expand...

And yet you trust the government to be able to decide what is or is not classified without any oversight? That means you think that government should be able to suppress any information it likes.

Surtr said:
Stealing classified military information for the purpose of dissemination is the textbook definition of espionage.
Click to expand...

Actually, espionage requires that the information be obtained for the benefit of a foreign government. The same is true of treason. And this is why Manning and Assange are not spies. They did not act to benefit any foreign nation. The primary beneficiaries of WikiLeaks are the American people, to whom the American government is held more accountable than before. That's not aid and comfort to the enemy, or spying for a foreign power. That's aid and comfort to Americans, and investigative journalism on behalf of Americans. What Assange and Manning did is no different from Woodward and Bernstein, only without an obvious villain like Richard Nixon.

cpwill said:
people died because of that a--hole.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
Alot of the material in there actively degraded US efforts to stabilize chaotic regions of the world - to include source names. Oddly, some of the most active downloaders were located in Central Asia, and some of those sources started disappearing shortly thereafter.

Mind you, we found some of them again. A piece here, a piece there....
Click to expand...

That's quite a stretch. And certainly not compelling enough proof to convict someone of a crime.

Kal'Stang said:
Wikileaks didn't do a "half hearted attempt" at transparency. That's what they've been doing for longer than what they did with the US Docs. They've done the same thing with other countries also.
Click to expand...

Which I'm sure the US approved of when they were doing it to someone else.

Kal'Stang said:
No he is not a rapist. The women that he supposedly "raped" consented. Even they did not want charges pressed. The prosecutor took it upon herself to press charges.
Click to expand...

Plus the actual charge wasn't even rape. It's some special category of sexual offense that isn't even a crime in most countries, including this one. Every single American who calls Assange a rapist could go and do what he did here and not be breaking any Americans laws.
 
Klown said:
that;s what whisltes blowers do - they break laws and confidentiality agreements for HIGHER MORAL CAUSES

What do you think should happen to the executioners in the helicopters who gunned down unarmed innocent Civilians?

Did they break any laws?

Who will be prosecuted for the 1.4 million Iraqi civilian deaths that were a direct and indirect result of ILLEGAL military actions by the USA?

But as we all know, fascist rule doesnt recognise morals and laws does it mr OldWordlOrder?

What do we do with the whistle blower Chemist who made authorities and the public aware of what the Tobacco corporations were putting into their cigarettes to accelerate the uptake and addiction to Nicotine?

He had a non-disclosure agreement attached to his employment too.

You seem to value one petty law that protects profits and criminals over higher morals and the general health and safety of the population who are unaware of what is going on.

You do realise what that makes you dont you?

View attachment 67135514
Click to expand...

why does the number of dead Iraquis seem to increase dramatically the further left the poster is politically? Pretty soon it will turn out that we actually killed more people than live in Iraq.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't think anyone is implying that. The first amendment says it pretty explicitly. The press is free. Always. (Okay, mostly always. But it's specifically free to do things like this.)



And yet you trust the government to be able to decide what is or is not classified without any oversight? That means you think that government should be able to suppress any information it likes.



Actually, espionage requires that the information be obtained for the benefit of a foreign government. The same is true of treason. And this is why Manning and Assange are not spies. They did not act to benefit any foreign nation. The primary beneficiaries of WikiLeaks are the American people, to whom the American government is held more accountable than before. That's not aid and comfort to the enemy, or spying for a foreign power. That's aid and comfort to Americans, and investigative journalism on behalf of Americans. What Assange and Manning did is no different from Woodward and Bernstein, only without an obvious villain like Richard Nixon.





That's quite a stretch. And certainly not compelling enough proof to convict someone of a crime.



Which I'm sure the US approved of when they were doing it to someone else.



Plus the actual charge wasn't even rape. It's some special category of sexual offense that isn't even a crime in most countries, including this one. Every single American who calls Assange a rapist could go and do what he did here and not be breaking any Americans laws.
Click to expand...

I continue to be amused at the passion with which people defend Assange and Manning. Highly amusing.
 
the_recruit said:
Is there a thread in which you don't bring up "the Great Wurlitzer"? Have you ever considered admitting yourself to a mental hospital?
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered giving "thinking" a try?
 
Paschendale said:
Actually, espionage requires that the information be obtained for the benefit of a foreign government.
Click to expand...
Espionage is not limited to foreign governments. Bradley Manning illegally obtained information, he gave that information to a source, who disseminated the information publicly, which was of benefit to a hostile enemy force during a time of war.

The same is true of treason.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Treason is the act of of committing crimes against ones own country. espionage can fall under treason, but they are two entirely different crimes.

And this is why Manning and Assange are not spies. They did not act to benefit any foreign nation.
Click to expand...
No, they benefited themselves, and by disseminating this information, they benefited our enemy during a time of war.

The primary beneficiaries of WikiLeaks are the American people, to whom the American government is held more accountable than before. That's not aid and comfort to the enemy, or spying for a foreign power. That's aid and comfort to Americans, and investigative journalism on behalf of Americans. What Assange and Manning did is no different from Woodward and Bernstein, only without an obvious villain like Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...

That information contained a great deal of information about current and planned operations. That is a huge benefit to the Mujahadeen and the Taliban.
 
Wiggen said:
I don't hate free speech. I just hate one sided, political rhetoric - most of it developed by Noam Chomsky - passed off as meanignful political dialogue.
Click to expand...

No matter what, it's still a free speech issue.
 
Wiggen said:
I continue to be amused at the passion with which people defend Assange and Manning. Highly amusing.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. You find it amusing. I think about it as a serious free speech subject.
 
Surtr said:
That information contained a great deal of information about current and planned operations. That is a huge benefit to the Mujahadeen and the Taliban.
Click to expand...

Aside from military related stuff, other things hurt the country. For example, the wikileaks from the amabassador from Kenya contained guesses, feelings, suspicions and speculation regarding the Kenyan government. Of course, there is a reason that these things were not made public - they were not facts or even necessarily true. It is obvious that ammbassadors would send this kind of information on through secure channels (for a variety of reasons). Unfortunately, these ambassadorial wikileaks are presented as "fact" because "they were in wikileaks". This caused the US government problems.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
No matter what, it's still a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

May as well be giving out the names of police informants, undercover officers, SF personnel, and members of the CIA. It's just free speech.

I honestly couldn't give a rats ass about Assange. Manning was the actor in this. Not only did he steal classified military information for the purpose of dissemination, he did it as a member of the Uniformed Services. That last part is what should end in execution.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
That's the problem. You find it amusing. I think about it as a serious free speech subject.
Click to expand...

And if someone released all of your personal conversations, bank and medical records, that's free speech?
 
ecofarm said:
Aside from military related stuff, other things hurt the country. For example, the wikileaks from the mabassador from Kenya contained guesses, feelings, suspicions and speculation regarding the Kenyan government. Of course, there is a reason that these things were not made public - they were not facts or even necessarily true. It is obvious that ammbassadors would send this kind of information on through secure channels (for a variety of reasons). Unfortunately, these ambassadorial wikileaks are presented as "fact" because "they were in wikileaks". This caused the US government problems.
Click to expand...

Assange is done. He's pissed on so many shoes in high places that prison is probably his safest bet. He didn't even do it for money, he did it for some inflated sense of moral superiority. Hope it was worth it.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
That's the problem. You find it amusing. I think about it as a serious free speech subject.
Click to expand...

Revealing secrets to terrorists and potential enemies is an area where I'm perfectly willing to curtail what you describe as 'free speech'. You are not.

Presumbably if Assange had been around in 1944 and revealed the D-Day timetable, you and the rest of his followers would have been writing letters to the editor criticizing the government for keeping such information secret and praising Assange and Manning for 'informing' us all.
 
Surtr said:
He didn't even do it for money, he did it for some inflated sense of moral superiority. Hope it was worth it.
Click to expand...

He did it for his 15 minutes, and I think reasonable people have had enough.
 
Surtr said:
Assange is done. He's pissed on so many shoes in high places that prison is probably his safest bet. He didn't even do it for money, he did it for some inflated sense of moral superiority. Hope it was worth it.
Click to expand...

'Moral Superiority' is the coin of the realm for the Far Left.
 
ecofarm said:
And if someone released all of your personal conversations, bank and medical records, that's free speech?
Click to expand...

No, there are laws against that. You are talking apples and oranges. Besides the supreme court has ruled that public figures do not have the same rights to privacy as pissants do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom