• 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!

Lawyers cry foul over leak of Julian Assange sex-case papers

Demon of Light said:
Why not? Do you think that having elections mean we cannot possibly have authoritarianism as well?
Click to expand...

Who said that? That is a straw argument that you are setting up. But as for the US, no I do not think they are authoritarian, at least not as of this moment. Sure some policies brought forth by progressives, whether they be repub progressives, or demo progressives are certainly leaning that way, but more to the fact that progressives need the control, and think that we as a people are too stupid to run our own lives. Assange does nothing to expose that goal. He merely has picked the US as a target, and is releasing information in the hopes of damaging our ties, our diplomacy, and ultimately bringing the US down.

What I read there is someone saying that greater government transparency will impede the ability of government to behave in an abusive manner and that a way to facilitate such transparency is with leaks.
Click to expand...

So if I read you correctly, it is only the US today that acts in an "abusive" manner, is that right?

Tell me DoL, how would you see the world if the US ceased to exist as it is today? What do you think would happen?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Who said that? That is a straw argument that you are setting up.
Click to expand...

It was not a strawman argument. It was a question.

But as for the US, no I do not think they are authoritarian, at least not as of this moment. Sure some policies brought forth by progressives, whether they be repub progressives, or demo progressives are certainly leaning that way, but more to the fact that progressives need the control, and think that we as a people are too stupid to run our own lives.
Click to expand...

Do not confuse authoritarianism with totalitarianism. Authoritarianism has as its basis the submission of the people to authority. This need not require penetrating interference by the state in everyday affairs.

Assange does nothing to expose that goal. He merely has picked the US as a target, and is releasing information in the hopes of damaging our ties, our diplomacy, and ultimately bringing the US down.
Click to expand...

The information revealed has been damaging to plenty of other countries as well such as Russia, China, and India.

So if I read you correctly, it is only the US today that acts in an "abusive" manner, is that right?
Click to expand...

No, I have no idea where you got that from.

Tell me DoL, how would you see the world if the US ceased to exist as it is today? What do you think would happen?
Click to expand...

That is like asking me what would happen if everyone in the line of succession in a country were killed. Creating a vacuum of power under any circumstances tends to cause instability.
 
the fellow is quite sophisticated in his approach
while the video may be quite less than nuanced, assange manages to elicit support in odd ways
 
Here is my take on this: If my Government is doing crap behind my back, I have a right to know. On the other hand, if Assange is doing crap behind my back, I have a right to know. Assange can't have it both ways. If he advocates transparency, then he too must be transparent.

Let me add one more thing - The rape charge against him looks suspicious, but I am going to wait and see how this plays out. If he was set up, then shame on them, but if it turns out that he DID commit rape, then he deserves to be in prison, whether or not people believe he did a good thing in leaking information.

In 1973, President Nixon resigned, after Watergate broke. In impeaching Nixon, it was said that nobody is above the law. I still believe that. Nobody is above the law, and that includes the asshole who is whining about leaks that concern him. If facing the music was good enough for Nixon, it is certainly good enough for Assange.
 
Demon of Light said:
What details would those be?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what the "diplomatic cables" are.


Are you seriously saying the relationship between government officials and business is none of our business?
Click to expand...

If no laws are broken, what's the problem? You seem to need gossip.


I do not worship the man, but what he is doing is exposing abuses by government and business so the fact said forces would seek to try him in the court of public opinion to diminish his efforts is quite upsetting to me.
Click to expand...

Need a tissue?

He's attempting to "try" everyone he's going after in the "court of public opinion."

So I guess I'm right; you think it's outrageous for it to happen to him because you like him.


If it were not for the fact that major corporations are the source of much of our jobs directly or indirectly that might be a good point. Without a job you can't get money. Without money you can't buy goods. Without goods you can't live.
Click to expand...

No corporation has any power over you that you don't give it. You don't like them? Don't buy their stuff.

The fact that they happen to be large employers is irrelevant. They're still private. It's not your business.

You just like seeing dirt dished out.


His crusade is against the authoritarian qualities of governments around the world. I would said that is a crusade to cheer on.
Click to expand...

Well, he's got you snowed.
 
Gill said:
Hasn't happened according to Wiki Leaks ??? You have no way of knowing whether it has or not.
Click to expand...

If it had happened don't you think that something would have been said about it by now by our own government? Remember, they want to trash this guy something fierce, I mean come on, they're trying to look at the law creatively in order to find something to legally charge him with.

Gill said:
If you consider the truth hypocritical, then feel free.
Click to expand...

From past posts I got the feeling that you valued justice. If you valued justice then you should know that wanting his jury pool tainted is not justice. That is what makes you hypocritical.
 
danarhea said:
Here is my take on this: If my Government is doing crap behind my back, I have a right to know. On the other hand, if Assange is doing crap behind my back, I have a right to know. Assange can't have it both ways. If he advocates transparency, then he too must be transparent.

Let me add one more thing - The rape charge against him looks suspicious, but I am going to wait and see how this plays out. If he was set up, then shame on them, but if it turns out that he DID commit rape, then he deserves to be in prison, whether or not people believe he did a good thing in leaking information.

In 1973, President Nixon resigned, after Watergate broke. In impeaching Nixon, it was said that nobody is above the law. I still believe that. Nobody is above the law, and that includes the asshole who is whining about leaks that concern him. If facing the music was good enough for Nixon, it is certainly good enough for Assange.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. But the leaking of the police report was not done for transparency but to attempt to hurt his jury pool and make people dislike him. There is a difference between trying to get government transparency through leaking classified documents and leaking a police report to purposely try to sabotage the jury pool.

Now I'll admit that I have absolutely no proof that they are trying to hurt the jury pool. But to me the whole situation just reeks of foul play all pointed at trying to get rid of Assaunge in a dirty fashion.
 
Zyphlin said:
For me it'd kind of depend on the kind of financial support they're getting.

Is it like a government contractor, where the government is your primary means of funding or you're working on behalf of hte government, then yeah it fits into that quasi kind of situation.

Is it a situation where the government owns the area of location and they've contracted you out to run it...such as contracting a security company to secure the premisis of an office building? Then again, I can kind of see that.

If you get some subsidy because you're manufacturing "green" products and there's a government incentive out there that gives your company money for producing "X" amount of "green" products? Then no, I don't think that company is any more a quasi-government entity than an individual getting a tax credit for buying a hybrid.
Click to expand...

What about financial aid to keep a business going? Also it might be good to note that many people consider the Federal Reserve (and by association banks) to be a part of the government anyways.
 
Harshaw said:
If no laws are broken, what's the problem? You seem to need gossip.
Click to expand...

How exactly are you suppose to know if a law was broken or not if they classify everything?

Harshaw said:
He's attempting to "try" everyone he's going after in the "court of public opinion."
Click to expand...

When it comes to the government they should always be subject to public opinion. So....what's the problem here again?

Harshaw said:
No corporation has any power over you that you don't give it. You don't like them? Don't buy their stuff.
Click to expand...

This actually depends on the situation. You don't have to buy anything from them in order to be affected by them. Lawyers are a great example of this.

Harshaw said:
The fact that they happen to be large employers is irrelevant. They're still private. It's not your business.
Click to expand...

What they do privately is none of my business correct. What the government does with them however is my business as the government is suppose to represent me. (300 million other people also)

Harshaw said:
You just like seeing dirt dished out.
Click to expand...

You just described at the very least 50% of US citizens. Papparazzi anyone?
 
Harshaw said:
You don't seem to understand what the "diplomatic cables" are.
Click to expand...

You said the cables revealed no wrongdoing and when I said you have a distorted of what constitutes wrongdoing you said maybe I wasn't paying attention to detail. I then asked you what details you are referring to and you come back with this. So how about you answer my question?

What I do know is that while most of the stuff revealed about the U.S. government itself is small-time there is plenty of damaging material concerning foreign countries, allies and enemies, as well as material concerning multinational corporations.

If no laws are broken, what's the problem? You seem to need gossip.
Click to expand...

No laws are broken with earmarks. Do you think that sort of information should not be given out? The thing about the law is many powerful people look for each and every way around it and make sure there are ways around it.

He's attempting to "try" everyone he's going after in the "court of public opinion."
Click to expand...

They generally aren't facing charges or at least not the ones they should face. Assange is already facing charges and the people involved know what it is about so revealing it all to the public at a time when there are court proceedings going on definitely is different.

So I guess I'm right; you think it's outrageous for it to happen to him because you like him.
Click to expand...

No, I think it is outrageous for people in power to attempt to corrupt the judicial process for political purposes.

No corporation has any power over you that you don't give it.
Click to expand...

I agree with the literal meaning of this, but your intended meaning is far too simple-minded. You could throw "government" in there instead of corporation and it would still be accurate.

The fact that they happen to be large employers is irrelevant. They're still private. It's not your business.
Click to expand...

What corporations do is very much the business of the people. Say I am not working for a company but a family member or friend is working for that company. I am sure there are some widows of oil rig workers wanting to see what was really going on in BP. Sure you will say that involves deaths so it is different, but then if someone had revealed said information before there was a incident perhaps there would not have been an incident at all.

Generally you only recognize the importance of transparency when it is best suited to your needs. Obviously your perspective is that transparency is not terribly important indicating that it is not in your interests much at all for some reason.

You just like seeing dirt dished out.
Click to expand...

I do rather like seeing the bad guys get their misdeeds splashed all over the media.

Well, he's got you snowed.
Click to expand...

No, I just recognize when someone is doing good and when I see it I generally do not oppose it.
 
j-mac said:
And who are the 'bad guys' in your mind?


j-mac
Click to expand...

the ones who object to their wrong doings being exposed to the light of day ... courtesy of wikileaks
 
justabubba said:
the ones who object to their wrong doings being exposed to the light of day ... courtesy of wikileaks
Click to expand...

What about American service members, friendly collabaraters and American intelligence operators whose lives have been endangered by wikileaks? Are they bad guys and wrong doers, too?
 
j-mac said:
And who are the 'bad guys' in your mind?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I was not being serious because I really do not think one can say there are "bad guys" and "good guys" in this world. However, when people do bad things I do like seeing said things get revealed, especially if those people have been preventing exposure.
 
apdst said:
What about American service members, friendly collabaraters and American intelligence operators whose lives have been endangered by wikileaks? Are they bad guys and wrong doers, too?
Click to expand...

This keeps being said. With nothing to prove that it has happened over the years the wikileaks has been around. As such it is nothing more than an appeal to emotionalism.
 
Julian Assange: my fate will rest in Cameron's hands if US charges me

Assange also took issue with a lengthy report in Saturday's Guardian setting out the prosecution allegations against him in Sweden. Assange acknowledged that the Guardian had a right to publish the material, dealing with his alleged encounters with the women. But he said it had been "sub-selected" and not placed properly in context.Swedish prosecutors have demanded that he return to Sweden to face further questions about the August allegations. Assange also said WikiLeaks did not have enough money to pay its legal bills, even though "a lot of generous lawyers have donated their time to us". He said legal costs for WikiLeaks and his own defence were approaching £500,000. The decisions by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal to stop processing donations to WikiLeaks – apparently following US pressure – had robbed the website of a "war chest" of around €500,000, he complained. This would have been enough to fund WikiLeaks' publishing operations for six months. At its peak the organisation was receiving €100,000 a day, he said.
Click to expand...

Hmm...looks to me like even if he didn't like it being published he at least agreed that they had a right to. So...what was this thread about again?......
 
Kal'Stang said:
This keeps being said. With nothing to prove that it has happened over the years the wikileaks has been around. As such it is nothing more than an appeal to emotionalism.
Click to expand...


It may take some time before the actual damage that Assange has done in his indiscriminate dumps without regard to names that Taliban have already said they found useful in identifying. Do you think that these people named, or their families will ever be safe?


j-mac
 
Kal'Stang said:
This keeps being said. With nothing to prove that it has happened over the years the wikileaks has been around. As such it is nothing more than an appeal to emotionalism.
Click to expand...

Do you think the death of an Afghan or members of his family would be big news outside their village? Do you actually think anyone would even know they were killed outside their village ??

We don't know if the leaks have killed anyone or not, and likley will never know. You don't know they haven't been harmed either.
 
j-mac said:
It may take some time before the actual damage that Assange has done in his indiscriminate dumps without regard to names that Taliban have already said they found useful in identifying. Do you think that these people named, or their families will ever be safe?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Don't know. I can't tell the future.
 
Gill said:
Do you think the death of an Afghan or members of his family would be big news outside their village? Do you actually think anyone would even know they were killed outside their village ??

We don't know if the leaks have killed anyone or not, and likley will never know. You don't know they haven't been harmed either.
Click to expand...

So you base what you say on things that you have no knowledge of and only assume. Until you get some proof then your words are meaningless.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you base what you say on things that you have no knowledge of and only assume. Until you get some proof then your words are meaningless.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you have no reservations about putting innocent people in danger ???

Yeah, let's wait till a couple dozen are dead, then you can feign outrage, right ??
 
Gill said:
Ahh, so you have no reservations about putting innocent people in danger ???

Yeah, let's wait till a couple dozen are dead, then you can feign outrage, right ??
Click to expand...

Actually, nope, I won't. For the simple fact that even if they do get killed it will not have been Assaunges fault. It will be the terrorists fault. They're the ones that pulled the trigger, they're the ones that should be held responsible. Blaming Assaunge for thier murder would be like blaming America for the drug cartel being in business considering how much business individuals in the US give them.

As for my reservations of putting people in danger...of course I have reservations. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and won't happen again. Hell there's over a trillion miles worth of driving being done in the US yearly. Don't you think that puts peoples lives in danger also?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom