• 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!

Should Wikileaks release Bank of America documents?

Should Wikileaks release Bank of America documents?


  • Total voters
    27
If there is wrong doing in the documents (which I bet there are) then hell yes. About time someone took on the banks and financial institutions who have ruined the economies of so many countries.
 
Clearly NO, because Wikileaks are spies and traitors!
 
Clearly NO, because Wikileaks are spies and traitors!

Oh the ignorance of the American conservative movement.. again, how can "Wikileaks" be traitors when most if not all are non Americans? How can they be spies when they have done their "deed" outside the US?
 
Oh the snobbishness of European liberals.....
 
Given that the banks just spent two years screwing us over and making record profit over the harm they caused. Why not?
 
Wikileaks should be fire bombed like Dresden.

Only from a conservative.
Open-ness and honesty mean nothing?
Or, if we do not know what it is, we just kill it ?
My own opinion is that we should investigate this with an open mind.
 
I would love to see a corrupt business exposed and destroyed. Then the magical market can prop up a replacement, and set the precedent that if you transgress, you will be punished. Banks should not have some kind of special treatment. If you break laws and hurt people, you pay the price.

Now, if WikiLeaks is just trying to force some kind of leverage, that's equally uncool. Honestly, he shouldn't make it contingent. He should just release the information, so that the guilty can be brought to justice.

Hopefully it'll be the financial institution you have most of your fortune in.
 
Only from a conservative.
Open-ness and honesty mean nothing?
Or, if we do not know what it is, we just kill it ?
My own opinion is that we should investigate this with an open mind.

Not everything needs to be, or even should be, done in the open. People and governments do have both a right to secrecy to an extent, and a need for secrecy to an extent.

We get people who take extreme views and they seem to dominate arguments like this. Should all of the documents WikiLeaks released be secret? To my eye, no. Some of the stuff probably was kept secret for political reasons. Does this justify some PFC and some foreign guy from deciding themselves that this means they should release it all? Absolutely not. Secrecy laws are not perfect, and are subject to abuse. This does not give random people the right to decide to ignore those laws.
 
If there is wrong doing in the documents (which I bet there are) then hell yes. About time someone took on the banks and financial institutions who have ruined the economies of so many countries.

This.

x1000
I hope it doesn't stop with just US banks but European and British ones too if there is evidence of wrong doing, show them
 
Oh the snobbishness of European liberals.....

If being able to think for one self is "snobbishness" then by all means call me a snob. If being able to understand even basic law is "snobbishness" then by all means call me a snob.

Like it or not, Assange and Wikileaks are not American, and hence cant be called traitors. As for being a spy... normally you cant be accused of spying on a country if you were never in the country when the supposed spying was done.. it is like being accused of murder in New York while you were in Tokyo, Japan.
 
If being able to think for one self is "snobbishness" then by all means call me a snob. If being able to understand even basic law is "snobbishness" then by all means call me a snob.

Like it or not, Assange and Wikileaks are not American, and hence cant be called traitors. As for being a spy... normally you cant be accused of spying on a country if you were never in the country when the supposed spying was done.. it is like being accused of murder in New York while you were in Tokyo, Japan.

I was not referring to your specific point, I was referring to the aura at which the point was being delivered.
 
If being able to think for one self is "snobbishness" then by all means call me a snob. If being able to understand even basic law is "snobbishness" then by all means call me a snob.

Like it or not, Assange and Wikileaks are not American, and hence cant be called traitors. As for being a spy... normally you cant be accused of spying on a country if you were never in the country when the supposed spying was done.. it is like being accused of murder in New York while you were in Tokyo, Japan.

Yes you can Pete. Remember the cold war? Many Soviet spies never set foot in the US, but where still spying on them(and we got briefings on how to handle being approached when overseas). The US did the same without ever setting foot in Russia.
 
Not if there's any financial or personal information in the documents.
 
Perfect example of my vigilantism is wrong, who gave him the power to decide whats right and wrong, or who "needs" and doesn't need to suffer.

Bank of America. If they have done nothing that would be embarrassing people will simply laugh when the information is released or say who cares and move on.
 
Hopefully it'll be the financial institution you have most of your fortune in.

If you have lots of money in a company wouldn't you want to know if they were doing some type shady deals?
 
How'd you reach that conculsion?

Well:

I'm sick of him flexing his "power"

who gave him the power

:mrgreen:

No, most of us just disagree with Assange and recognize him as a thug based on his actions and hypocrisy. Forgive me if I doun't sound very humble, but I say this to disprove your assertion that I am not doing much with my life. Right now I'm a junior in a private university with a 3.0+ GPA majoring in molecular biology. I'm have plans to go to pharmacy school and I will be taking the PCAT in January. I work as a pharmacy technician and I'm a full time student. I don't envy Assange, I don't disagree with him because of an inferiority complex. Me, and many others, disagree with him because of the beliefs we hold and the actions that Assange has committed. I wouldn't judge us all that way simply because you don't understand our point of view.

How many powerful people have you made enemies? How often has your name been filling the airwaves? I did not say you were not doing much with your life, just not as much as Assange.

Or it could be we just don't like people trying to harm our country. Or maybe we don't like how he is playing his blackmail game. Or it could be we actually have morals and look down on those without. I wonder which it is....

Hint: it ain't the inferiority one, and is a combination of the other ones.

Actually you are just making the inferiority explanation stronger. Naturally to compensate for your feelings of inferiority you are saying anything you can to convince others and yourself that you are far from being inferior. It goes a bit like this: "Where does he come off? Does he think he is better than me? He is not better than me! In fact, I am better than him!"

I believe there was something insightful Irving Kristol once said when asked about the Man of the Century and who would be remembered and why. Some of the negative examples came up, and Kristol believed that with time their legacies would fade. I'll paraphrase from memory the most important part....

"...sure they destroyed a lot, but they created very little."

Seeking fame and destruction is not contributing to society and the global public. For that, there is very little to envy.

You are presuming Assange is in fact destroying rather than building. All the same the notion is naive and idyllic.
 
I for one want to see what the banks are up to, and the Bank of America isn't even under the control of the people. If the U.S. economy greatly affects world economy and a private corporation is at the head of it, I want to see everything that it's doing.
 
You are presuming Assange is in fact destroying rather than building. All the same the notion is naive and idyllic.

I believe it was his public declaration that he was not interested in creating transparent society, let alone doing it carefully and respectfully.
 
I believe it was his public declaration that he was not interested in creating transparent society, let alone doing it carefully and respectfully.

Link?

.......
 
Go Wikileaks. I am in favor of anything that increases costs for our USA competitors. If the USA banks have to spend tons on repairing bad press and upgrading their security, they will have to raise their fees.

I hope he has customer information because that would be the most costly from which to recover. It would also be rather entertaining hearing all the howls of protest from those that have their identity compromised.

.
 
Link?

.......

RS: I want to ask you a broader question, about the role of technology and the burgeoning world of social media. How does that affect the goal you're trying to achieve of more transparent and more open societies? I assume that enables what you're trying to do.

JA: Let me just talk about transparency for a moment. It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society.



From his Time interview. The comment continues discussing the impact of social new media on aiding them, and so forth.

Transcript: TIME Interview with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange - TIME
 
RS: I want to ask you a broader question, about the role of technology and the burgeoning world of social media. How does that affect the goal you're trying to achieve of more transparent and more open societies? I assume that enables what you're trying to do.

JA: Let me just talk about transparency for a moment. It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society.



From his Time interview. The comment continues discussing the impact of social new media on aiding them, and so forth.

Transcript: TIME Interview with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange - TIME

In this case, transparency is justice, so I'm not sure what your qualm is.
 
I don't agree with that definition of "justice." It seems more interested in throwing snowballs and embarrassing people in order to initially damage relations with all parties involved. If there is a plan for a better society, it sure has not been thought out, nor has it been implemented. It is just causing chaos.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom