• 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

So you think refusing to use a condom is merely "douchebag", refusing to get tested after refusing to use a condom is merely "douchebag" and that the US should have apologized for a human shield used by rogue journalists (as if the US doesn't apologize profusely for collateral damage).

There were no rogue journalists. Remember it was a camera that they were carrying. A mistake was made. Man up and apoligize for it. I don't care how often someone apologizes for other things not related to an event. You should always apologize for each and every single event. Not cover it up.

Do you not believe that ambassadors should have secure lines to their higher-ups in which to pass speculation?

Relevence?
 
Man up and apoligize for it.

You think the US doesn't apologize for collateral damage?


Relevence?

He released such documents and caused trouble for US ambassadors around the world. Do you not know about that part of wikileaks?
 
He refused to use a condom and is under rape charges. The more obvious reason for refusing a test is that it complicates the rape charge.

"Embarrassed"? Wow, could you be a bigger apologist.

1: He refused to take the test LONG before any rape charges came about.

2: Yes embarressed. It is very embarressing to get tested for STD's.
 
You think the US doesn't apologize for collateral damage?

They obviously didn't in this case. They classified the material remember?

He released such documents and caused trouble for US ambassadors around the world. Do you not know about that part of wikileaks?

Yes I know about it. But again, whats that question got to do with what we are talking about?
 
They obviously didn't in this case. They classified the material remember?

Any one of the many general apologies suffices.

Yes I know about it. But again, whats that question got to do with what we are talking about?

Do you think that part of wikileaks is legal or justified?
 
The New York Times has disseminated classified information before...should they be held for espionage also? Why/why not? (Note that I am NOT defending Manning, I believe that he is where he is suppose to be..and should be there for a long time. My question is mainly regarding the journalism aspect)
The New York Times didn't steal their information directly from a military installation.




How did Assaunge benefit himself?
Money, self gratification through affirmation of his ideologies, his name being known world wide, etc. The guy is a megalomaniac, there's a lot to choose from.


From what I have read and heard and understand the information regarded what happened in the past.
A lot of information was given away, including the names of informants who were working for the Coalition Forces. I'm guessing they're all dead now.
 
From your link....



So what exactly constitutes "interests of National Security"?

Did you see the multitudes of other documents referenced?

I've already stated what they did that was wrong. Sorry if you can't accept that the right thing to do was to at the very least admit that wrong did happen. Even if that wrong was an accident it was still wrong. Or should we not have involuntary manslaughter charges in our legal system?

Do you think warzones are like normal domestic situations?
 
what? no you didn't - you linked wikipedia, not a single controlling document for US Classification guides.

here. DOD 5200.1. Executive Order 13526. Then perhaps you can tell us about your time as an original classification authority and your ability to speak to the legal review process. :) Enjoy.

I see nothing in either of those links which helps you. Tell me...what does "(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage." mean exactly?

Also what exactly about the aforementioned video falls under the guidelines that you all have provided?
 
The New York Times didn't steal their information directly from a military installation.

So it was ok for them to publish it right?

Money, self gratification through affirmation of his ideologies, his name being known world wide, etc. The guy is a megalomaniac, there's a lot to choose from.

What money? He's broke. Self gratification? Well now that could be used for anything that anyone does now can't it? Has it ever been valid to use? No. Known world wide? He already was.

A lot of information was given away, including the names of informants who were working for the Coalition Forces. I'm guessing they're all dead now.

You're "guessing"? Its been 2 years since all this went down and you have no evidene of even one person being killed due to these leaks?
 
Yes I did. What exactly constitutes "interests of National Security"?

You may want to look in them for your answer. There's literally hundreds of them. "Covering something up" isn't one of them, though.
1: No.

2: Irrelevent.

You're the one that brought up involuntary manslaughter. I agree, it's irrelevant. Why did you purposely bring something up that was irrelevant? Why are you rationalizing Manning leaking information when the only problem you have with the actions was that no apology was issued afterward?
 
Any one of the many general apologies suffices.

No it does not. Would you accept such an apology?

Do you think that part of wikileaks is legal or justified?

I believe that wikileaks had every right to release the information that they did. But then I believe in freedom of the press. I also believe that the ONLY things that should be classified is troop movements/strategies, and military technology.
 
No it does not. Would you accept such an apology?

Yes, it does and, yes, I would.

I believe that wikileaks had every right to release the information that they did. But then I believe in freedom of the press.

Yeah, well... releasing classified ambassador speculation? That serves no purpose and hurts diplomacy fundamentally. You don't like diplomacy?
 
What Assaunge did wasn't rape. As was said earlier if you do what he did here in the US this would be a non-issue and nothing would have come of it. (BTW for actual rape here in the US the victim can refuse to prosecute...all they have to do is refuse to testify and without their testimony the person walks)

As for your reference to "The Great Satan"...last I knew that is what Islamic extremists called the US...what do they have to do with this discussion?

And no, its not that big of a mystery as to why he hasn't gone back. Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US in which they pretty much ALWAYS extradite to the US. You should note that originally the Prosecutor there in Sweden wasn't going to charge Assaunge. It wasn't until after Assaunge had leaked those files that the prosecutor "decided" to charge Assaunge. IIRC the "rapes" as you call them actually happened a year or so before these leaks.

Oh come on. You like the Great Satan label. You can admit it. It's what turns worms like Assange into heroes for those on the Far Left. If the United States is the target, then any outrage is permissable. Even releasing private diplomatic communications that might result in death to Americans or their allies.
 
You may want to look in them for your answer. There's literally hundreds of them. "Covering something up" isn't one of them, though.

Do you really think that they would say "Oh! lets cover this up!" No. They would have it fall under one of the various qualifications...such as "interests of National Security".

You're the one that brought up involuntary manslaughter. I agree, it's irrelevant. Why did you purposely bring something up that was irrelevant?

Ok, now I understand what you meant. I am not calling for the troops that did the shooting to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. My bringing it up was to show that killing someone accidentally is considered wrong in our society. Right? So shouldn't there at the very least be an apology for committing something that was equivilant to involuntary manslaughter (the accidental killing of someone)?

Why are you rationalizing Manning leaking information when the only problem you have with the actions was that no apology was issued afterward?

I'm not rationalizing anything that Manning did. As I have said before I agree that what Manning did was wrong. This whole conversation started because someone (can't remember who now without looking) questioned whether "misdeeds" was evidenced in the leaks. I showed that there was.
 
Oh come on. You like the Great Satan label. You can admit it. It's what turns worms like Assange into heroes for those on the Far Left. If the United States is the target, then any outrage is permissable. Even releasing private diplomatic communications that might result in death to Americans or their allies.

When you have something that is actually relevent to say then I will yank your chain.
 
I believe that wikileaks had every right to release the information that they did. But then I believe in freedom of the press.

fascinating. so you do not believe in such a thing as proprietary information?
 
Yes, it does and, yes, I would.

So if your child was killed in a war even though he was a civilian that was doing NOTHING wrong you would accept a "general" apology that isn't even directed at you or at least the event? Some how I doubt it very seriously.

Yeah, well... releasing classified ambassador speculation? That serves no purpose and hurts diplomacy fundamentally. You don't like diplomacy?

I like open and honest diplomacy. Not hidden.

Edit to add: "or at least the event"
 
Last edited:
When you have something that is actually relevent to say then I will yank your chain.

And whenever you say anything that isn't a knee-jerk defense of the Australian rapist, I'll care.
 
fascinating. so you do not believe in such a thing as proprietary information?

When it comes to the government? No. As I said before the only things that should be classified is military movement/stratagies, and military technology.
 
So if your child was killed in a war even though he was a civilian that was doing NOTHING wrong you would accept a "general" apology that isn't even directed at you? Some how I doubt it very seriously.

You think there needs to be a personal apology for all collateral damage resulting from human shields and rogue journalists?

Nah. Collateral damage is apologized for plenty enough to cover everyone.



I like open and honest diplomacy. Not hidden.

When it comes to the government? No. As I said before the only things that should be classified is military movement/stratagies, and military technology.

Diplomacy requires the ability of ambassadors to pass speculation and other classified info back and forth with their country.
 
Do you really think that they would say "Oh! lets cover this up!" No. They would have it fall under one of the various qualifications...such as "interests of National Security".

That's not a qualification on its own. I have another question: why would you talk about classification requirements if you clearly know nothing about them?


Ok, now I understand what you meant. I am not calling for the troops that did the shooting to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. My bringing it up was to show that killing someone accidentally is considered wrong in our society. Right? So shouldn't there at the very least be an apology for committing something that was equivilant to involuntary manslaughter (the accidental killing of someone)?

No. It's a warzone. If they have the time inclination? Cool, go ahead. If they don't? That's cool, too.

I'm not rationalizing anything that Manning did. As I have said before I agree that what Manning did was wrong. This whole conversation started because someone (can't remember who now without looking) questioned whether "misdeeds" was evidenced in the leaks. I showed that there was.

That was me. I still don't see any 'misdeeds'. Mistakes made in war aren't 'misdeeds'. I mean, unless we want to just back it absurd: a random ND in the chowhall would be a 'misdeed'. A guy cheating on his wife with some slutty E-4 is a 'misdeed'. If someone is trying to defend Manning, though? No, there's no real 'misdeed'.
 
You think there needs to be a personal apology for all collateral damage resulting from human shields and rogue journalists?

There were no rogue journalists or human shields. No matter how many times you repeat it it still will not be true.

Diplomacy requires the ability for ambassadors to pass speculation and other classified info back and forth with their country.

No it doesn't. You just think it does.
 
There were no rogue journalists or human shields. No matter how many times you repeat it it still will not be true.

The van was a human shield utilized by rogue journalists.


No it doesn't. You just think it does.

The whole world, except you, thinks it does.
 
Back
Top Bottom