• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Michael Ratner: Assange called for release of Bradley Manning and attacked President Obama's call for free speech while suppressing whistle blowers


Video @:
Assange Speaks to UN - YouTube

Assange speaks to UN panel and calls on US, UK and Sweden and speaks to respect free speech, and protect whistle blowers, and to free Bradly Manning. Ecuador and others try to convince the US, UK, and Sweden to allow safe passage and go back to Sweden to try to clear up these "sexual acts" allegations.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Except that the federal government basically labelled all information they have on any foreign dignitaries as "Top Secret" no matter how trivial, so only an extremely small number of cables were actually hurtful.

Assange does not deserve to be demonized for what he's been doing.
 
Or idolized either, he's just an egocentrist.
 
Because let's be honest, there is nothing "Whistle Blowing" about dumping half a million documents from SIPRNet and JWICS.

I thought they were all from SIPR. Did he dump from JWICS as well? I don't think he did.
 
Or idolized either, he's just an egocentrist.

An egocentrist who highlighted the miserable failure of the US system that allowed a junior soldier to extract the largest set of restricted documents (250,000) that have ever leaked to the public. Ooops.

Wikileaks confirmed what i already knew. That our purportedly open, freedom-loving democratic governments lie to us on a regular basis.

Viva la truth.
 
Why the hell should they free Manning? Dude is a traitor.

It was admitted by the Pentagon that the info he allegedly released did little to no damage whatsoever.

Edit: Added in "little to"
 
An egocentrist who highlighted the miserable failure of the US system that allowed a junior soldier to extract the largest set of restricted documents (250,000) that have ever leaked to the public. Ooops.

Wikileaks confirmed what i already knew. That our purportedly open, freedom-loving democratic governments lie to us on a regular basis.

Viva la truth.

Uhhh...what?
 
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Assange Speaks to UN - YouTube

Assange speaks to UN panel and calls on US, UK and Sweden and speaks to respect free speech, and protect whistle blowers, and to free Bradly Manning. Ecuador and others try to convince the US, UK, and Sweden to allow safe passage and go back to Sweden to try to clear up these "sexual acts" allegations.

Here is an opportunity for the US to support its allegedly "free speech" in this Nation. The documents released showed that the USA was lying to other Nations, diplomats, we the people, and the press. It made it obvious, one more time, that security labels, i.e. "top secret, secret, confidential" are really used to hide screw ups and any negative info. Nothing whatever to do with security.
 
How many times must this subject been regurgitated in futility? What some would prefer to label as "whistle blowing", was quite simply a document dump that violated the potential sovereignty, safte and diplomatic interests of a myriad of countries. Manning, on the other hand, by all indications violated both military and federal law by unloading a truckload of documents to sources not deemed fit by the contracts necessarily signed simply in order to obtain such security clearance. Not much sympathy for the kid, nor do I understand the overwhelming support and the seemingly hero-like treatment he's adorned with.
 
How many times must this subject been regurgitated in futility? What some would prefer to label as "whistle blowing", was quite simply a document dump that violated the potential sovereignty, safte and diplomatic interests of a myriad of countries. Manning, on the other hand, by all indications violated both military and federal law by unloading a truckload of documents to sources not deemed fit by the contracts necessarily signed simply in order to obtain such security clearance. Not much sympathy for the kid, nor do I understand the overwhelming support and the seemingly hero-like treatment he's adorned with.

If ydou don't understand it you were probably duped by the corporate media too.
 
If ydou don't understand it you were probably duped by the corporate media too.
No "corporate influence" at play here, or any other buzzwords or catchphrases of the sort. Some of us simply realize that violations of the law should be treated as such, regardless of the feel good, cumbaya, intentions that may lie behind such actions.
 
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.

Thats incorrect.

Assange and Wikileaks DID NOT DUMP EVERYTHING they received onto he public domain without first deciding on whether the information endangered other peoples lives

In fact Assange has already said publically that he, even today, has access to files that relate to corrupt Banking practices and US war crimes that he hasnt released yet

Whistle blowing isnt even an issue here - I believe its called investigative journalism

If the mass media corporate puppets had down their Job you wouldnt even need wikileaks to release the US war crime files

WHo will defend the 1.4 million dead Iraqi civilians? Most of whom were children and the elderly
 
No, I think most of the world is duped by the corporate media.

:lol:

What the ****? So if you think Assange just dumped a bunch of classified files in a half-hearted attempt for 'transparency' and that Manning didn't break not only UCMJ but also his legal non-disclosure agreement, you're just being duped by the corporate media? :lol: Seriously?
 
:lol:

What the ****? So if you think Assange just dumped a bunch of classified files in a half-hearted attempt for 'transparency' and that Manning didn't break not only UCMJ but also his legal non-disclosure agreement, you're just being duped by the corporate media? :lol: Seriously?

I think his decision was good for journalism.
 
Who's? And what if it was? What would be the significance of that?

Are you implying that people should prize what's good for journalism over what's good for the federal government? Wouldn't that just be subjectively preferential?
 
Except that the federal government basically labelled all information they have on any foreign dignitaries as "Top Secret" no matter how trivial, so only an extremely small number of cables were actually hurtful.

Assange does not deserve to be demonized for what he's been doing.

I demonize him because he's a rapist who isn't man enough to face up to the charges. Plus, personality wise, he seems like an asshole.
 
How many times must this subject been regurgitated in futility? What some would prefer to label as "whistle blowing", was quite simply a document dump that violated the potential sovereignty, safte and diplomatic interests of a myriad of countries. Manning, on the other hand, by all indications violated both military and federal law by unloading a truckload of documents to sources not deemed fit by the contracts necessarily signed simply in order to obtain such security clearance. Not much sympathy for the kid, nor do I understand the overwhelming support and the seemingly hero-like treatment he's adorned with.

They are both popular with those, both within our borders and without, who intensely dislike the United States. They're willing to overlook treason and rape in the process. It's quite a weird phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
If ydou don't understand it you were probably duped by the corporate media too.

Is corporate media the new buzzword of the far left, guaranteed to be trotted out periodically when the facts don't support whatever anti-american rants are taking place?
 
Who's? And what if it was? What would be the significance of that?

Are you implying that people should prize what's good for journalism over what's good for the federal government? Wouldn't that just be subjectively preferential?

No, only a humble opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom