• 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!

Wikileaks

What do you think of Wikileaks and Julian Assange?

  • Total voters
    44
Redress said:
This is the other big question. This is what the government is investigating right now. Not you, not I, not Kal'stang, not even Vauge know what the substance of those chats are. Any one saying yes he committed crimes or no he did not are being very premature.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that I am being premature. I am just basing what I say on what facts are presented to me. Since in America a person is suppose to be presumed innocent until proven guilty my line of thought is currently valid. If Assaunge is ever convicted of conspiracy to leak classified information and the evidence is overwhelming then believe me, I will support him being jailed. But until then I will follow the dictates of part of what makes America...America.

Also regardless of what happens to Assaunge I will still support wikileaks stated goals on thier about page. One bad apple doesn't mean you throw the whole basket out. If people want to lable me "anti-western" for doing so then so be it. I care not one iota what people call me. There's a reason that I claim "Independent" below my name here. ;)
 
Redress said:
Wait what? You like what they are doing but despise what they are doing?
Click to expand...

I like everything but the part where they screwed the pooch spreading sensitive US intelligence data. That is NOT acceptable. They should be in prison for that.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
I like everything but the part where they screwed the pooch spreading sensitive US intelligence data. That is NOT acceptable. They should be in prison for that.
Click to expand...

In otherwords they were just fine spilling everyone elses secrets...just don't do it to the US.
.
.
.
Well...at least you get credit for honesty. Thank you.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Agreed. So between your points and my points why is it that you tried to bring in wikileaks security protocols into this?
Click to expand...

The difference between our positions is that you're arguing that someone gets special legal privileges simply because they fit some arbitrary definition of "the press." That's not what the freedom of the press is - it protects activities, not people. If a "journalist" commits a crime, he goes to jail like everyone else.

Plausible and probable do not constitute facts.
Click to expand...

Which is why I haven't yet filed charges against Assange. However, the government is looking into it, and as I said, I would wager that they end up bringing charges.
 
RightinNYC said:
The difference between our positions is that you're arguing that someone gets special legal privileges simply because they fit some arbitrary definition of "the press." That's not what the freedom of the press is - it protects activities, not people. If a "journalist" commits a crime, he goes to jail like everyone else.
Click to expand...

From my POV they're not special privledges and no crime has been committed. At least none that we have proof for. As already stated the only possible crime that could come out of this is the conspiracy charge. Which affects the person itself and not the organization. If conspiracy charges are brought up then no 1st amendment would apply as conspiracy to commit a crime is a whole different ball field. Espionage could come out of it IF and only IF the conspiracy charge sticks in a court of law. However if the conpiracy charge does not stick then any other charge would fall under the 1st amendment protections of free press. Judging by the way past courts have ruled on the different versions of free press it is not hard to imagine that it would be exanded to include web pages. In fact I would even go so far as to say that it is a given.

RightinNYC said:
Which is why I haven't yet filed charges against Assange. However, the government is looking into it, and as I said, I would wager that they end up bringing charges.
Click to expand...

The question now becomes..."will the charges stick"? Will he be found guilty? Don't know. Until he is though I am going to assume that he is innocent and go from there.
 
Kal'Stang said:
From my POV they're not special privledges and no crime has been committed. At least none that we have proof for. As already stated the only possible crime that could come out of this is the conspiracy charge. Which affects the person itself and not the organization. If conspiracy charges are brought up then no 1st amendment would apply as conspiracy to commit a crime is a whole different ball field. Espionage could come out of it IF and only IF the conspiracy charge sticks in a court of law.
Click to expand...

This is all correct, but I think you're underestimating the impact that these conspiracy charges would have/the likelihood of charges eventually being brought.


However if the conpiracy charge does not stick then any other charge would fall under the 1st amendment protections of free press. Judging by the way past courts have ruled on the different versions of free press it is not hard to imagine that it would be exanded to include web pages. In fact I would even go so far as to say that it is a given.
Click to expand...

This really isn't the issue, and I'm not sure how the discussion has turned to this. The question of whether wikileaks published its information on a website, in a pamphlet, or in a newspaper has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of these individuals' actions. Again, the first amendment is not concerned with the method of conveyance so much as it is concerned with the content of that conveyance. Moreover, the first amendment protects the publication of news and limited forms of newsgathering. It does not protect anyone from punishment for commission of a crime, be it conspiracy or another crime.

The question now becomes..."will the charges stick"? Will he be found guilty? Don't know. Until he is though I am going to assume that he is innocent and go from there.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but I'm not a juror, so I don't feel at all bad about assuming that some of the people at wikileaks broke the law.
 
Last edited:
vauge said:
But Wikileaks has committed no crime. They are not US citizens.
Click to expand...

:shrug: neither is a VBIED facilitator. both, however, are ultimately working for the same side and both ultimately deserve the same fate.
 
Manning should spend the rest of his life at Ft. Leavenworth. Even though wiki leaks didn't directly hack to get these files they should be tried for espionage for releasing them on the internet. No they are not Martyrs what so ever. They more like just group people that believe they can bring down the "Big, Bad USA" by releasing our secrets .
 
cpgrad08 said:
Manning should spend the rest of his life at Ft. Leavenworth. Even though wiki leaks didn't directly hack to get these files they should be tried for espionage for releasing them on the internet. No they are not Martyrs what so ever. They more like just group people that believe they can bring down the "Big, Bad USA" by releasing our secrets .
Click to expand...

They have no specific agenda against any nation last I checked.
 
Also did 41 people vote for 'cold blooded terrorists'?

u all srs?
 
I chose "other". I abhorr what they have done, but they certainly aren't terrorists. Pvt. Manning's actions would have been laudable... IF he had released only the helicopter video that he believed was proof of a war crime. But he didn't stop there. He deliberately, meticulously, deceptively downloaded hundreds of thousands of confidential and secret documents without knowing or caring what was in those documents. Then he handed everything over to Assuage for public dissemination. Manning could be charged with many crimes up to and including espionage and treason. Since he was initially quite pleased with himself and confessed every detail of what he'd done in media interviews, I pretty much believe he is guilty. However, what I believe he's most guilty of is being a self-pitying little pissant who was angry the military wasn't moving fast enough to repeal DADT and decided to take his revenge. He's seeing now that wasn't such a good idea, and I don't feel a bit sorry for him.

Assuage gleefully disseminated that information for several reasons. One, because he's an attention whore, which is why he dreamed up Wikileaks in the first place. Second, because he's over the moon delighted to have the means to actually hurt and discredit the USA, a country he clearly hates. He cannot be charged with treason because he's not a citizen of this country. Espionage is technically possible, but a stretch. In my mind he is guilty of receiving stolen classified documents, which is a crime, and passing classified documents on to other sources, which is a crime.

Neither of these idiots have two sparking brain cells to their name, because they both seemed to think that there would be no consequence to either of them for their actions. There have been, and there will continue to be.

What truly irks me, however, is the cult status that now calls these delusional dunces "heros". Now would-be attention whores around the world who also want to be cheered as a hero are going to be looking for ways to get their paws on more and more stuff to bring down governments and corporations, again without giving a second thought to potential consequences. Yes, chanting for anarchy is a fun way to spend one's adolescence; however, actually living in a society where diplomacy has broken down and anarchy rules... not so much.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Mistrust and uneasy collaberations are built because of dishonesty and dishonest acts. Perhaps those would not be a concern if people were more honest in thier dealings. What better way to force honesty than to expose the lies and deceit?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get this. There is far more to human nature than the utopiann dream of human perfection. Governments, like societies, are like people. You may have a business partner you shake hands with, but wouldn't trust him with your bank accounts. Does not revealing that unnecessary truth damage your business relationship?

Uneasy collaborations exist between governments. Do we really need "Wikileaks" to reveal private conversations of goverment officials discussing the untrustworthiness of other governments thereby forcing public back peddling and further mistrust? Bigger things are happening in this world and exposing "lies and deceits" only expose you to dangers you cdon't understand. Especially when that absolute transparency seems solely focused on western nations.

Like it or not, but peace is built on "lies and deceits."
 
SE102 said:
They have no specific agenda against any nation last I checked.
Click to expand...

Considering the far greater degree of transparency that western nations have as compared to the others, "they" are very focused on spewing anything they can get their hands on from the very nations and systems that give them their right to betray. They are little more than the "Enquirer" of the Internet. Nothing is sacred and no responsibility exist. Last I checked, their "agenda" is made easy. Perhaps they could focus more of their efforts on getting state secrets from other nations. Of course, their people don't have the attitude that everything must be destroyed in order to achieve their perfect personal "rights," no matter how fleeting those rights would be without our Western nations protecting them. It's a vicious cycle of irresponsibility that people pretend doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
as i recall assange also claimed to have a bunch of material on how russian banks were connected to high-up russian pols.......

...but then he shut up and hasn't mentioned it since.

i guess suddenly realizing that the people you are exposing are willing to actually kill you sort of dampens the RevolutionarySpiritMan! aspect of being a copy/paster.
 
These two posts perfectly sum up my observations on this topic.

Redress said:
Since the poll options as they are designed fit only those who are at the very very far end of the spectrum of belief, I had to choose other. I think what WIkileaks is doing is not acceptable. There are ways to change the system of what is classified and how it is classified without doing mass dumps of data. The fact that some of that data named collaborators in Afghanistan and put them at additional risk is a sign of zero moral accountability.
Click to expand...

I feel a lot like Redress does. I've point blank been told repeatedly that Wikileaks has not caused anyone to be killed or harmed. Redress mentions one example where we know that the data being released by Assange has put Afghan collaborators names in the public. Anyone that would suggest these people are not in danger in Afghanistan being known as collaborators with the United States would be some kind of blind fool.

Just following the comments from Redress we get the following reply.

SE102 said:
He does for free what others do for money and they are respected in the media. He's being hounded after and he needs to play the cards he has as they aren't playing fair.
Click to expand...

They aren't playing fair. They. Assange? He is, I guess. This is all about fair. No need to assign any moral implications for putting peoples lives in danger. This is about fair. Somehow. And Assange has "fans" too. I wonder how long before we see some nice T-Shirts with his picture on them?

To be clear I agree with others that this is not a black and white yes or no answer. The fact is that Assange will be hounded and will probably spend a lot of his time for a long time to come being held accountable for what he did. Good. If he did not understand the implications for his actions before he took them then he is an idiot that deserves everything he gets back. He chose his course. I wonder how he will feel in a decade or so as the legal ramifications and implications that can be *linked* to him start to arrive via attorneys from all around the globe?

I also am amused by the way all the Assange and Wikilinks fans just gloss over the fact that their hero actually publicly complained that his private information was being subjected to the Assange treatment. The man is an unapologetic text book hypocrite. I say let him enjoy the just fruits and rewards from his so called work. It is only *fair*.
 
Last edited:
Did anybody see Julian assange on 60 minutes this last Sunday night?
 
MSgt said:
Considering the far greater degree of transparency that western nations have as compared to the others, "they" are very focused on spewing anything they can get their hands on from the very nations and systems that give them their right to betray. They are little more than the "Enquirer" of the Internet. Nothing is sacred and no responsibility exist. Last I checked, their "agenda" is made easy. Perhaps they could focus more of their efforts on getting state secrets from other nations. Of course, their people don't have the attitude that everything must be destroyed in order to achieve their perfect personal "rights," no matter how fleeting those rights would be without our Western nations protecting them. It's a vicious cycle of irresponsibility that people pretend doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You self refute, if they were transparent there would be no 'leaking' to be had.

No need to assign any moral implications for putting peoples lives in danger.
Click to expand...

A popular argument, but really just more repeated hot air with no substance. Soldiers are put more in danger through sharing information on facebook than any wikileaks.
 
Juiposa said:
What is your opinion on them?
Click to expand...

Wikileaks are typically liberal naive idiots, thanks this crazy guys the entirely Arabic world is already uprising.
 
I saw that 60 Mins Interview and that man totally creeps me out. There is something about him that gives me the creeps and I kept wondering if he has dead bodies buried around him or something. The dude is major skin crawl material. *Shudders*
 



This seems like the most appropriate place for the above video(without starting a new thread), hope the OP does not mind....TY
 
I don't have a problem with wikileaks. The real culprit is that military guy who passed along the secrets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom