• 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

Wiggen said:
Presumbably if Assange had been around in 1944 and revealed the D-Day timetable, you and the rest of his followers would have been writing letters to the editor criticizing the government for keeping such information secret and praising Assange and Manning for 'informing' us all.
Click to expand...

If someone hates the US government and believes CT, then any attack on the government is a good one.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
No, there are laws against that. You are talking apples and oranges. Besides the supreme court has ruled that public figures do not have the same rights to privacy as pissants do.
Click to expand...

There are laws against what he did. You think that classified documents by ambasadors should be considered public acts by public figures?
 
Surtr said:
May as well be giving out the names of police informants, undercover officers, SF personnel, and members of the CIA. It's just free speech.

I honestly couldn't give a rats ass about Assange. Manning was the actor in this. Not only did he steal classified military information for the purpose of dissemination, he did it as a member of the Uniformed Services. That last part is what should end in execution.
Click to expand...

Your arguement was brought up during the "pentagon papers."
 
LiberalAvenger said:
No, there are laws against that. You are talking apples and oranges. Besides the supreme court has ruled that public figures do not have the same rights to privacy as pissants do.
Click to expand...

There are also laws against stealing classified military information, and making said information public. The Supreme Court also upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, which makes stealing and distributing military and national secrets a capital offense.
 
I think all 'wikileaks' discussion should take place in the Conspiracy Theory subforum. Why? Because the only people who support Assange are people who believe CT.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
History repeats it self so take heed.
Click to expand...

Little Assange is fighting the big evil US dragon! Like David and Goliath! After the US faked the moon landing, hid the extra terrestrials and their craft and engineered 9/11 - well, we can only hope that some of us "pissants" spit in their eye once in a while.

Am I right?

Arguing Assange with CTers is arguing with someone who has no real premise.
 
ecofarm said:
There are laws against what he did. You think that classified documents by ambasadors should be considered public acts by public figures?
Click to expand...

No, you are getting it all wrong and confused. I did not say anthing about my personal opinions on the matter. I was just stating facts fyi.

I was only talking about free speech precedents. Can you figure it out now?
 
Kal'Stang said:
They're not holding those documents because they believe in secrecy. They are holding them to try and keep Assaunge out of jail.
Click to expand...

They're doing it for practical reasons relating to their self-interest. Just like governments do.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I was only talking about free speech precedents. Can you figure it out now?
Click to expand...

Can you figure out that free speech precedence has nothing to do with classified documents sent by ambassadors through secure channels?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I was only talking about free speech precedents. Can you figure it out now?
Click to expand...

Let's try to make this simple.

Why are you against ambassadors being able to send classified documents up their chain (especially regarding speculation)?

Do you think we should not have ambassadors? Or just that they should not be able to communicate securely with their higher-ups.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's try to make this simple.

Why are you against ambassadors being able to send classified documents up their chain (especially regarding speculation)?

Do you think we should not have ambassadors? Or just that they should not be able to communicate securely with their higher-ups.
Click to expand...

You're chasing a "red herring" as the argument is that the classification system is being use to cover up embarrassments and faux paxs. The 12 dead civilians from the helicopter assault should be sufficient proof of that. On the other hand, your subliminal cranial massage has been working successfully. You don't need to know. It's a need to know basis.
 
Wiggen said:
why does the number of dead Iraquis seem to increase dramatically the further left the poster is politically? Pretty soon it will turn out that we actually killed more people than live in Iraq.
Click to expand...

According to the US defense department between 95,000 and 110,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the initial US invasion in 2003 and 2009.

But then again they also said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was linked with al qaeda and 9/11

I prefer the analysis carried out by the same two expert analysts who determined the number of deaths Milosovic was responsible for. You know, the analysis that the US accepted and was used as key evidence in finding Milosovic guitly at the Hague.

Funny how when the same two analysts are sent to Iraq to carry out an identical assessment, with an even larger sample size, the US questions the accuracy of the report. Funny that isnt it!

Lets assume the US defence department is correct with an estimate of about 100,000 dead Iraqi civilains. Sounds like a crime against humanity to me? And remember, Saddam was tried and hung for the death of about 140 prisoners.

This has to do with exposing war crimes and atrocoties - purely a moral and legal matter. Not a time to politically pollute the issue with your paranoic left right tribalism
 
ecofarm said:
Let's try to make this simple.

Why are you against ambassadors being able to send classified documents up their chain (especially regarding speculation)?

Do you think we should not have ambassadors? Or just that they should not be able to communicate securely with their higher-ups.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't give a dam what they do. I was talking about free speech and not cars.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Frankly, I don't give a dam what they do. I was talking about free speech and not cars.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the classified documents, containing various speculations from ambassadors, being legitimate security - and Assange violated that.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
Whistleblowing generally implies that there is specific information or a specific issue you want to alert the public to by releasing information. Assange is not a whistle blower, he got his hands upon State Department communications cables in their hundreds of thousands and dumped them without making any effort to sift through them. He had no idea if people could be hurt, conflicts started or exacerbated, etc etc, because he didn't even really have a great idea of what was on them.

Because let's be honest, there is nothing "Whistle Blowing" about dumping half a million documents from SIPRNet and JWICS.
Click to expand...
It's also not illegal.

The real issue with Assange is that he embarassed some 'important' people.

To the gallows with him!
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The real issue with Assange is that he embarassed some 'important' people.
Click to expand...

No, the real issue is that he compromised national security and interests to get his 15 minutes from CT people.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm talking about the classified documents, containing various speculations from ambassadors, being legitimate security - and Assange violated that.
Click to expand...

Pentagon papers all over again. Your country right or wrong.
 
ecofarm said:
No, the real issue is that he compromised national security and interests to get his 15 minutes from CT people.
Click to expand...

Whose national security? He's not an American. If you were to compromise the national security of Mozambique by exposing war crimes, would you consider yourself a terrorist?
 
Klown said:
According to the US defense department between 95,000 and 110,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the initial US invasion in 2003 and 2009.

But then again they also said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was linked with al qaeda and 9/11

I prefer the analysis carried out by the same two expert analysts who determined the number of deaths Milosovic was responsible for. You know, the analysis that the US accepted and was used as key evidence in finding Milosovic guitly at the Hague.

Funny how when the same two analysts are sent to Iraq to carry out an identical assessment, with an even larger sample size, the US questions the accuracy of the report. Funny that isnt it!

Lets assume the US defence department is correct with an estimate of about 100,000 dead Iraqi civilains. Sounds like a crime against humanity to me? And remember, Saddam was tried and hung for the death of about 140 prisoners.

This has to do with exposing war crimes and atrocoties - purely a moral and legal matter. Not a time to politically pollute the issue with your paranoic left right tribalism
Click to expand...

So you've now downsized from 1.4 million to 140,000. I guess that's progress.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Pentagon papers all over again. Your country right or wrong.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with what country and everything to do with ambassador communications with higher-ups being classified. That is legitimate security, and Assange violated it just like he allegedly violated women. He has no sense of deceny, and no problem throwing the US under the bus for the fame and glory spewed upon him by conspiracy theory people.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Whose national security? He's not an American. If you were to compromise the national security of Mozambique by exposing war crimes, would you consider yourself a terrorist?
Click to expand...

He didn't "expose war crimes", he released thousands of classified documents from ambassadors concerning their speculations about their respective assignments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom