• 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 Founder Julian Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign'

Assange doesn’t care. He’s a man who likes to watch the world burn and said as much on his blog: “[C]ast blessings on the profits and prophets of truth, on the liberators and martyrs of truth, on the Voltaires, Galileos, and Principias of truth, on the Gutenburgs, Marconis and Internets of truth, on those serial killers of delusion, those brutal, driven and obsessed miners of reality, smashing, smashing, smashing every rotten edifice until all is ruins and the seeds of the new.”

Damn but he is way full of himself.
 
Talk about a lame conspiracy theory. Wikileaks does not have nearly enough money or protection in order for it to have anything to do with Soros. That someone who has done work for a Soros organization also does work for Assange is a pretty meaningless connection.


Uh huh....Nothing to see right? Just go back to sleep fine sheeple.......


j-mac
 
Uh huh....Nothing to see right? Just go back to sleep fine sheeple.......


j-mac

I am not saying that George Soros is not some mass manipulator who engineers the fall of governments and collapse of economies. What I am saying is that if a man of his clout was supporting Wikileaks it would not have any trouble getting money or protection. I do not know how things are presently but earlier this year Wikileaks had only managed to raise a million dollars over a few months after having to briefly shut down due to lack of funds. If those ties to Soros meant anything we would be talking about much higher figures.
 
Last edited:
Well, does this guy have some huge balls on him or what? :shock: Plus in saying that he is a wuss at that, 'Undisclosed' location.....pfft.


j-mac

He's wanted by INTERPOL for sexual assault, rape, and disclosure of classified documents, of course he wouldn't diclose his location.
 
Assange the Aussie assclown thinks Hillary should resign (shame on Time for giving him the format). Hillary thinks this POS should be taken down and incarcerated. If Hill resigns, it'll be to run for higher office, not because of the Aussie noodleneck. Meanwhile, Assange will end up in the Courts, and if not incarcerated, hounded out the legal whazoo for many moons to come.

Couldn't happen to a more worthless scumbag.
 
First off I'm an Australian. Like Assange. I do take a large interest in global politics though.

I watched the full Glenn Beck program on Wikileaks. Youtube is helpful :)

Basically his argument for the connection between Wikileaks and George Soros is that an organization that supports the leaker is the adult rendition to an organization created by a person who is now the CEO of the OSI organization, who George Soros is affiliated with. I'm struggling to see how this is significant at all... But even if it were... So what?

Beck goes on to say that Assange should be tried for "treason", forgetting that he's not an American citizen, nor is he even in the country. Wikileaks isn't even hosted in the United States. Huckabee and O'Reilly have called for nothing less than execution for the leakers themselves, and Palin has asked why he's not being pursued with the same severity as senior Al-Qaeda leaders.

The leading argument as far as I can see for his execution is that he "cost lives" though the leaking of this information. One Wikileaks held onto it for a long time to make sure this threat was lessened, and secondly they never actually go into any specifics, at least I've never seen anyone (I'd be overjoyed if someone here can provide me with a specific example of Assange's leaks (well, an organization he heads) costing lives). They seem to just say "He's cost lives" and leave it at that, without any challenge.

The rape charges come at a curious time. Being wanted by a large number of countries (from the US to China to much of Europe, etc), most of whom who want him silenced, and now he's gone up against corporations, which is more or less suicide, it's a little odd for this to come out. That said, he should, as far as I can see, go in to clear all this up. I'd watch the trial VERY closely. I've heard that the woman said the condom broke and he didn't "pull out" soon enough, is this true? Any clarity you could shine would be much appreciated.

I don't think anyone doubts Assange and Wikileaks have done some brilliant things for the world. Providing information on corrupt governments, safety violations by big corporations, all matter of things. I thought the Tea Party Conservatives would support the principle that a government has no justification for keeping non-military secrets from its population... after all, the people ARE the government, or at least they're meant to be. On military issues I didn't expect much support, but I support him at this point in time.

First post :)
 
Is that so, well you are entitled to your own beliefs ofcourse, but just to highlight the character of this 'man', Assange offered a Q&A session for the guardian. Here is one question he took, where the person asking the question was articulate, and offered background to whom he was, and asked a pithy question at the end. Assange avoided it like the plague. Nice....here it is.

Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.


Julian Assange:
If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.


Julian Assange answers your questions | World news | guardian.co.uk

What a putz!


j-mac
 
I really dont understand why idiots like this would do such things as this against your own country. He is now scare ****less and now hiding
 
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.[3] Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[4]
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[5] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[6][7] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain [10] supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.[11][12] Some individualist anarchists are also socialists.[13][14]


Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This one is promoting Global chaos.

j-mac
 
Still...you gotta admit...there wasnt too much concern as long as he was banging the anti Bush, anti war drums. But now that he has dragged the dems into the mix...why...we gotta shut em down!!!

Newsflash...he is the same scumbag he always was...but he was YOUR scumbag...so...ya kinda liked him. Admit it...ya KNOW ya did.
 
Is that so, well you are entitled to your own beliefs ofcourse, but just to highlight the character of this 'man', Assange offered a Q&A session for the guardian. Here is one question he took, where the person asking the question was articulate, and offered background to whom he was, and asked a pithy question at the end. Assange avoided it like the plague. Nice....here it is.



What a putz!


j-mac

I brought up a lot in my above comment. I'm still wondering how this is a good connection Beck forms between Wikileaks and George Soros, and why this matters.

I also wanted to know how one can justify wanting to put him on trial for treason. I stated some reasons below.

I asked for specific examples of the information he released causing specific loss of life.

Addressing the above comment you made, for one I don't see how this is in any way an indictment of Assange in a legal or moral sense, should we despise every CEO, politician, head of organization, etc, etc who dodges a question? Secondly, Assange has gotten this question an almost ridiculous amount of times, albeit in a different context (not specifically the Balkans), but I don't see how it would change the response. The man still doesn't point out HOW the information released will mess with international relations and aid negotiations SPECIFICALLY.

Furthermore, even if it does mess up international relations and stop negotiations, I still believe (at this time) that he has a right to post it. This wasn't an American leak of any sorts on Wikileak's part. He wasn't an American citizen and Wikileaks is hosted offshore. NUMEROUS other sources have shared the same information. Wikileaks is another REPORTER like the New York Times, a large majority of news media, and websites that have reuploaded the documents. Wikileaks didn't "leak" the documents any more than the mainstream media did. If you want to blame someone go and run campaigns against leaks in the military/government. THEY have a responsibility that they take on when they sign up for the military. Charge THEM with whatever appropriate according to law.

If you want to hold Wikileaks accountable I don't see how you can give the rest of the news media a pass.

Additionally, the media gives coverage to serial killers all the time, it's absolutely beyond dispute that the media attention they gain at least partially motivates some killers. Does this mean they should be arrested for printing it? Speech shouldn't be stopped unless it in itself causes direct harm, or directly incites it. For example, calling on people to murder another, yelling bomb on a crowded plane, etc. Indirect violence caused by speech (such as reporting serial killer crimes, releasing information on innocent civilians killed by the United States which enrages local populations, etc) I do not believe warrants censorship.

Is it evil to release documents showing illegal practices in a government if that means that bloody uprisings might follow?

Thanks.

Still...you gotta admit...there wasnt too much concern as long as he was banging the anti Bush, anti war drums. But now that he has dragged the dems into the mix...why...we gotta shut em down!!!

Newsflash...he is the same scumbag he always was...but he was YOUR scumbag...so...ya kinda liked him. Admit it...ya KNOW ya did.

I've never wanted him shut down. Regardless of whether he's harming Bush's reputation or Obama's. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest who is in charge when the US does stuff like this, the politicians are equally responsible in either case. The Democrats don't have good intents in mind, they're looking to cover their political asses from a controversy, even if that controversy is justified. The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans of this. They try to hide damaging information to THEM because they have power. What happened to the government being the people, and not some abstract, separate entity that enforces the interests of the political machine and corporate America? Transparency is the surest path to an accountable, honest government.

If I had my way every ex-president alive would have some SERIOUS investigations placed over them delving into violations of international and domestic law. And I like it that way. Those in power need the greatest checks on their actions.

Thanks.

I really dont understand why idiots like this would do such things as this against your own country. He is now scare ****less and now hiding

He's in hiding because half the world's governments want his head on a platter, as well as much of the international corporate world. In the United States he might just get a lot of hate from those in power and calls from some areas of society for him to be charged, but in China and a lot of the South American nations they're not so forgiving. He's running a serious risk to his personal safety, even if he's in hiding.
 
Last edited:
I brought up a lot in my above comment. I'm still wondering how this is a good connection Beck forms between Wikileaks and George Soros, and why this matters.
He's in hiding because half the world's governments want his head on a platter, as well as much of the international corporate world. In the United States he might just get a lot of hate from those in power and calls from some areas of society for him to be charged, but in China and a lot of the South American nations they're not so forgiving. He's running a serious risk to his personal safety, even if he's in hiding.

See any others that fit the bill? Prolly who the post was intended for. Right?
 
I had to laugh last night watching the news. Talking about the UK police knowing where he was, they showed an archive clip of Assange in a city street. As the voiceover said "He is currently living somewhere in Southeast England", onscreen a big red double-decker London bus went by in the background...
 
Last edited:
I had to laugh last night watching the news. Talking about the UK police knowing where he was, they showed an archive clip of Assange in a city street. As the voiceover said "He is currently living somewhere in Southeast England", onscreen a big red London bus went by in the background...

Lol, I've seen a lot of archival footage of him lately, are you sure this wasn't in kind?
 
I brought up a lot in my above comment. I'm still wondering how this is a good connection Beck forms between Wikileaks and George Soros, and why this matters.

Beck is a curious dude, I think he is trying to figure out what is going on in the world just like the rest of us. But, it is interesting that a man like Soros would be either knowingly, or unwittingly helping an Anarchist like Assange that self describes his motives for releasing this materiel as intentionally causing chaos. It is a Soros playbook.

I also wanted to know how one can justify wanting to put him on trial for treason. I stated some reasons below.

I would think they were talking about PFC Bradley Manning, and not Assange. Assange's charges would more likely be espionage.

I asked for specific examples of the information he released causing specific loss of life.

I see, so if they don't happen immediately then no harm, no foul? is that it?

Addressing the above comment you made, for one I don't see how this is in any way an indictment of Assange in a legal or moral sense, should we despise every CEO, politician, head of organization, etc, etc who dodges a question? Secondly, Assange has gotten this question an almost ridiculous amount of times, albeit in a different context (not specifically the Balkans), but I don't see how it would change the response. The man still doesn't point out HOW the information released will mess with international relations and aid negotiations SPECIFICALLY.


Did you read the question? The diplomat laid it out quite clearly.

Furthermore, even if it does mess up international relations and stop negotiations, I still believe (at this time) that he has a right to post it. This wasn't an American leak of any sorts on Wikileak's part. He wasn't an American citizen and Wikileaks is hosted offshore. NUMEROUS other sources have shared the same information. Wikileaks is another REPORTER like the New York Times, a large majority of news media, and websites that have reuploaded the documents. Wikileaks didn't "leak" the documents any more than the mainstream media did. If you want to blame someone go and run campaigns against leaks in the military/government. THEY have a responsibility that they take on when they sign up for the military. Charge THEM with whatever appropriate according to law.

Bradley Manning is being charged. But I find it interesting that you find no moral problem with just posting anything out there just because you can.

If you want to hold Wikileaks accountable I don't see how you can give the rest of the news media a pass.

Who says I do? I have long railed against the NYTimes for blabbing secrets that aided our enemies. In that sense they work against their own country.


Additionally, the media gives coverage to serial killers all the time, it's absolutely beyond dispute that the media attention they gain at least partially motivates some killers. Does this mean they should be arrested for printing it? Speech shouldn't be stopped unless it in itself causes direct harm, or directly incites it. For example, calling on people to murder another, yelling bomb on a crowded plane, etc. Indirect violence caused by speech (such as reporting serial killer crimes, releasing information on innocent civilians killed by the United States which enrages local populations, etc) I do not believe warrants censorship.

No one is talking censorship. It would be nice though if ethics were displayed.

If I had my way every ex-president alive would have some SERIOUS investigations placed over them delving into violations of international and domestic law. And I like it that way. Those in power need the greatest checks on their actions.

Thanks.

You're welcome. Are you an Anarchist as well?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
helping an Anarchist like Assange that self describes his motives for releasing this materiel as intentionally causing chaos.

:D

He's a libertarian, which is like the opposite of an Anarchist, and he has plainly stated that he thinks accountability is good for the market, both for consumers and capitalists alike.
 
:D

He's a libertarian, which is like the opposite of an Anarchist, and he has plainly stated that he thinks accountability is good for the market, both for consumers and capitalists alike.

???

Anarchism is an extension of libertarian thought. Whether it is market anarchism or classical anarchism.
 
Accepting stolen property is not "freedom of speech". Publishing information stolen from a government, marked as "Classified" and "Secret", is not freedom of speech.

Assange the sorry Aussie needs to get bitch-slapped for at least the next 20 years, working in a prison laundry somewhere, sleeping in a tiny bed. Then doing it again the next day.
 
Z3n said:
Anarchism is an extension of libertarian thought. Whether it is market anarchism or classical anarchism.

Libertarianism is the opposite of Anarchism because libertarianism is the culmination of the universality of private property whereas Anarchism calls for its complete abolishment. "Market anarchism" has absolutely nothing in common with "Classical anarchism" aside from perhaps similar rhetoric.

Further, Anarchists would consider libertarianism a form of fascism, as would most that support the abolishment of private property (Marxists and other non-Marxian socialists).

Eighty Deuce said:
Accepting stolen property is not "freedom of speech".

Leaked information is not stolen property.

Publishing information stolen from a government, marked as "Classified" and "Secret", is not freedom of speech.

On the contrary, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) set a legal precedent that states that it is.
 
Last edited:
Beck is a curious dude, I think he is trying to figure out what is going on in the world just like the rest of us. But, it is interesting that a man like Soros would be either knowingly, or unwittingly helping an Anarchist like Assange that self describes his motives for releasing this materiel as intentionally causing chaos. It is a Soros playbook.

You didn't address how this is a valid "connection" to Soros, nor how a connection to Soros, if it existed, makes Assange worse. I honestly have no idea what Beck is trying to do here, it just seems like blind character assassination by association. He did this to President-Elect Obama, to his wife, to anyone he wants to get fired in the administration... I don't see what's so bad about being connected to George Soros. Can you please enlighten me?



I would think they were talking about PFC Bradley Manning, and not Assange. Assange's charges would more likely be espionage.

The Espionage Act has never been successfully employed against any sort of media organization. Review by the courts has stated that "imminent lawless action" is required to be shown by the prosecution [Brandenburg v. Ohio]

True, Eric Holder is considering charging Assange under the act, but whether it would succeed or not is extremely sketchy. If anything it would bring up the question of the constitutionality of the act, which would be a good thing. Again, I am opposed to the law, but I still respect it. One sometimes must drink hemlock for the rule of law.


I see, so if they don't happen immediately then no harm, no foul? is that it?

You can't throw blame at Wikileaks for causing harm if no harm has yet been caused. The most you can say is that it "might cause harm", and even that you have to justify. Go and look at the files they've released, find some stuff that could potentially cause harm, then come back and I'll accept that the release "might cause harm".


Did you read the question? The diplomat laid it out quite clearly.

Yes, and I denounce his answer. However, I don't see how this is a scathing indictment of the man. People dodge questions all the time. Did you watch the 2008 elections? Barrack Obama and John McCain? Those two dodged every second question thrown at them. Sarah Palin? Don't even get me started on Sarah Palin dodging questions... The fact is, I could likely find a similar instance for every person alive. If I searched hard enough I'm sure I could find an instance of Mother Teresa dodging a question. What's your point. I neglect to see how this example separates him in any way from the rest of the population.


Bradley Manning is being charged. But I find it interesting that you find no moral problem with just posting anything out there just because you can.

I know he's being charged, but he's not the source of the entire leak, and certainly not the source of all of Wikileaks' leaks. They have been at this for years. The United States is only one small area of their work. There are laws against military personnel leaking classified material, charge them as appropriate. I have a Socratic view on law.

Who says I do? I have long railed against the NYTimes for blabbing secrets that aided our enemies. In that sense they work against their own country.

In that very same program Glenn Beck spread the content of those leaks, almost every commentator on Fox, every commentator on MSNBC, most of the print media, and the majority of world media have spread the content of the leaks. Glenn Beck even boasted how they validated some of his predictions. I don't see how spreaders of the material being overseas negates their repsonsibility according to your position, after all, Wikileaks is hosted overseas. Do you want to charge all these people? I personally viewed and downloaded parts of the Afghan War Logs and sent quotes around to my friends. Does this mean I should be arrested?

I don't see how Wikileaks being the second party to spread the material makes them more guilty than the third, forth, fifth, or millionth party.

ALSO, you said that these aid the US's enemies... please provide a specific instance...


No one is talking censorship. It would be nice though if ethics were displayed.

You want to arrest someone for spreading information. That information is therefore censored...

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor."



You're welcome. Are you an Anarchist as well?

I dislike labels. Ask me about some issues and I'll give you my opinions. I respect the rule of law, if Assange is guilty of something then charge him as appropriate, that doesn't stop be disagreeing with it, nor does it make me an anarchist.

Assange the sorry Aussie needs to get bitch-slapped for at least the next 20 years, working in a prison laundry somewhere, sleeping in a tiny bed. Then doing it again the next day.

I am astounded that people just assume that he's guilty and desire him to be imprisoned. At the most don't you want him to go through a fair trial and accept the consequences?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom