• 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!

Julian Assange and Ed Snowden

Heroes or Traitors


  • Total voters
    39
Your conspiracy theories are worthless. We did go to the moon and there were no aliens at Roswell. When you have proof of your conspiracy theories then we can talk.

The fact that the US government was and is illegally spying on its citizens as well as its allies is no conspiracy theory it is a conspiracy fact and it makes the US government a criminal organization, just as it was when it lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, just as it was when it lied about WMD in Iraq, just as it was when it injected unknowing citizens with syphilis in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and the list goes on and on and on.

The fact is that Assange, and Snowden are hero's for exposing the criminals in government, and the defenders of the government are just as guilty of treason against the American people as the criminal government.
 
No, but then again, I don't know many (any) people who have as many powerful and influential enemies as Assange does. I don't blame him one iota for fearing unjust prosecution.

And I don't think there are any grounds for calling him 'sleazy'. All we actually know is that the guy was accused of sexual assault, and that's it; we have no knowledge of his guilt, and under rule of law, we are supposed to presume innocence.

Not only do you admire Sleazy Assange, you also seem to have applied your notion of American justice to the Swedish system. I can't take your blinders off of you. In time, we get to see how the Assange story plays out. Between now and then, let us remain at an impasse and agree to disagree?
 
Not only do you admire Sleazy Assange, you also seem to have applied your notion of American justice to the Swedish system. I can't take your blinders off of you. In time, we get to see how the Assange story plays out. Between now and then, let us remain at an impasse and agree to disagree?

I can't help but note the irony of you accusing me of having 'blinders' even as you persistently attack Assange for something he wasn't even indicted for and insist on presuming his guilt.

The bottom line is that he wasn't convicted or indicted of anything, is accused on an evidentiary basis flimsier than that regarding Hillary's emails (whom I'm sure you admire and defended to the death on the matter), and he has performed a service in exposing corruption and deceit with sunlight, regardless of its source.
 
Last edited:
Snowden is a traitor and should be shot. Even the Obama administration called him a traitor and would not pardon him. Putin had no use for Snowden long ago so why do they let him stay? Funny how you guys can call Trump and his aides moles and puppets of Russia with zero evidence but Snowden can be put up by the Russian government and you guys call him a hero.

I thought Conservatives were massively concerned about the Big Government (that Snowden exposed) getting too powerful.
 
The fact that the US government was and is illegally spying on its citizens as well as its allies is no conspiracy theory it is a conspiracy fact and it makes the US government a criminal organization, just as it was when it lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, just as it was when it lied about WMD in Iraq, just as it was when it injected unknowing citizens with syphilis in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and the list goes on and on and on.

The fact is that Assange, and Snowden are hero's for exposing the criminals in government, and the defenders of the government are just as guilty of treason against the American people as the criminal government.

You twist the facts. Just for one, according to the best information available at the time, US intelligence believed that there were WMD's in Iraq. Saddam even bragged there was. So, just because something wound up being wrong does not mean it was a lie. Ditto many of your other comments.
 
I can't help but note the irony of you accusing me of having 'blinders' even as you persistently attack Assange for something he wasn't even indicted for and insist on presuming his guilt.

The bottom line is that he wasn't convicted or indicted of anything, is accused on an evidentiary basis flimsier than that regarding Hillary's emails (whom I'm sure you admire and defended to the death on the matter), and he has performed a service in exposing corruption and deceit with sunlight, regardless of its source.

Even the smartest of people maintain at least a few misconceptions. Based on your posts, you probably don't think O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony ever killed anyone. We know you presumed them innocent of murder. Both won acquittals at trial. You view the world around you much differently than I do. Just guessing, we probably have an age gap between us of more than 20 years. That would partly explain our strikingly different viewpoints.
 
Was listening to a talk radio show on the way home and he was having callers on about the subject and am curious as to where DP stood.

I would say both are heroes.. Although since Assange is not a US citizen he can't be a traitor to the US. Snowden revealed that out government was betraying the American people by violating the Constitution which most in the government took an oath to uphold. Assange reveals crap that governments shouldn't be doing or revealing things that governments shouldn't be keeping secrete.
 
Even the smartest of people maintain at least a few misconceptions. Based on your posts, you probably don't think O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony ever killed anyone. We know you presumed them innocent of murder. Both won acquittals at trial. You view the world around you much differently than I do. Just guessing, we probably have an age gap between us of more than 20 years. That would partly explain our strikingly different viewpoints.

That's hilarious.

Trying to compare OJ Simpson, who was involved in a highly controversial case awash in evidence that made it not only beyond indictment but deep into the courtroom, to Assange's _allegations_ which haven't even come close to this and are currently predicated on nothing more than he said/she said, is the absolute height of disingenuity. Doing so is not sophisticated or worldly so much as wholly ridiculous.

I understand what you're saying, that yes, there are times when presumption of guilt seems warranted in light of the facts due to miscarriages of justice or people being caught essentially redhanded despite the lack of any official verdict affirming it... but that's not even remotely the case here. The facts don't spell out Assange's guilt or even come close to it.

In the end, all I see is a Hillary partisan who is apparently very upset about the fact that Assange chose to pass along sunlight to the public that may have cost his girl the election.
 
Last edited:
That's hilarious.

Trying to compare OJ Simpson, who was involved in a highly controversial case awash in evidence that made it not only beyond indictment but deep into the courtroom, to Assange's _allegations_ which haven't even come close to this and are currently predicated on nothing more than he said/she said, is the absolute height of disingenuity. Doing so is not sophisticated or worldly so much as wholly ridiculous.

I understand what you're saying, that yes, there are times when presumption of guilt seems warranted in light of the facts due to miscarriages of justice or people being caught essentially redhanded despite the lack of any official verdict affirming it... but that's not even remotely the case here. The facts don't spell out Assange's guilt or even come close to it.

In the end, all I see is a Hillary partisan who is apparently very upset about the fact that Assange chose to pass along sunlight to the public that may have cost his girl the election.

No way would you consider CIA Director Pompeo a Hillary partisan. He made some remarks earlier this month about WikiLeaks and Assange.

Assange claims to harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of America. But I assure you that this man knows nothing of America and our ideals. He knows nothing of our third President, whose clarion call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continue to inspire us and the world. And he knows nothing of our 34th President, a hero from my very own Kansas, who helped to liberate Europe from fascists and guided America through the early years of the Cold War.

No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history.

We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values.

They do not care about the causes and people they claim to represent. If they did, they would focus instead on the autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech and dissent. Instead, they choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments—which has, so far, proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant.

Clearly, these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience. We know this, for example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal information of scores of innocent citizens around the globe. We know this because the damage they have done to the security and safety of the free world is tangible. And the examples are numerous.
 
Brings back to memory the saying that if I jumped off a bridge would you jump off too? Just because the founding fathers were technically traitors doesn't mean that it is ok for everyone to be a traitor. If Trump colluded with the Russians you're saying that there isn't anything wrong with that.

I just think context is important. Is every action against one's government a "traitorous" act? Is the government synonymous to country?
 
I thought Conservatives were massively concerned about the Big Government (that Snowden exposed) getting too powerful.

That's not quite true. Conservatives are against big government because big government is full of bureaucracy and costs too much.
 
No way would you consider CIA Director Pompeo a Hillary partisan. He made some remarks earlier this month about WikiLeaks and Assange.

Has nothing to do with Assange's guilt or innocence as it relates to the sexual abuse allegations.

That noted, obviously the CIA is going to have disdain for a whistleblower and want to silence him; many within the organization wanted to off Snowden for his exposure of their systemic constitutional violations via mass surveillance. That said, Assange releases information as he gets it; he doesn't have any explicit allegiance to any government, nor has anyone released any information or proof demonstrating as much. It just so happened he has lately had access to leaks that featured US institutions.
 
Has nothing to do with Assange's guilt or innocence as it relates to the sexual abuse allegations.

That noted, obviously the CIA is going to have disdain for a whistleblower and want to silence him; many within the organization wanted to off Snowden for his exposure of their systemic constitutional violations via mass surveillance. That said, Assange releases information as he gets it; he doesn't have any explicit allegiance to any government, nor has anyone released any information or proof demonstrating as much. It just so happened he has lately had access to leaks that featured US institutions.

You flip flop with the elegance of a gymnast. You proclaim a presumption of his innocence of any sexual misconduct prior to adjudication, totally discounting Assange fled in 2010 to avoid prosecution and refuses to face his accusers. When I questioned your blanket presumption by bringing up O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. You used the words hilarious and ridiculous and owned up to the occasional miscarriage of justice.

You didn't think my description of Assange as mercenary in nature... available to the highest bidder, held even a hint of truth. You referred to me as upset over Hillary losing. You discredit an ardent anti-Hillary supporter, our CIA Director Pompeo's disdain for Assange as something totally expected.

You want to glorify what Assange does. Okay. No winning an argument with you. I respect your intelligence and note your unwillingness to acknowledge any indication of sleaziness and criminality by Assange. Maybe by DP standards, you won our little debate. Congratulations! Cheers to you and those you love... all grins!
 
You flip flop with the elegance of a gymnast. You proclaim a presumption of his innocence of any sexual misconduct prior to adjudication, totally discounting Assange fled in 2010 to avoid prosecution and refuses to face his accusers. When I questioned your blanket presumption by bringing up O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. You used the words hilarious and ridiculous and owned up to the occasional miscarriage of justice.

You didn't think my description of Assange as mercenary in nature... available to the highest bidder, held even a hint of truth. You referred to me as upset over Hillary losing. You discredit an ardent anti-Hillary supporter, our CIA Director Pompeo's disdain for Assange as something totally expected.

You want to glorify what Assange does. Okay. No winning an argument with you. I respect your intelligence and note your unwillingness to acknowledge any indication of sleaziness and criminality by Assange. Maybe by DP standards, you won our little debate. Congratulations! Cheers to you and those you love... all grins!

#1: It is not glorification to state factually that Assange is a whistleblower, and exposes corruption with leaks provided to him, in this case that internal to the DNC, with sunlight.

#2: Assange is not indicted of any crimes. There is no compelling reason to assume guilt regarding allegations, unlike in other cases you stated; presumption of innocence in this case is therefore completely warranted. There fundamentally no evidentiary basis to the allegations other than hearsay which is precisely why it is indeed utterly and completely ridiculous to compare it to infamous miscarriages of justice/controversial verdicts such as the OJ Simpson trial which was steeped in evidence, physical and otherwise, and extensive investigation.

#3: It is indisputable that Assange has powerful and influential enemies, and this performs a rational basis for not trusting the legal process. That having been said, he _has_ cooperated with interview requests within the Ecuador embassy.

#4: It is indisputable that the CIA is and has always been anti-whistleblower regardless of political affiliation. The CIA and its directors have never been a friend of Assange, or indeed anyone similar.

#5: On all of these points I have been completely consistent; no flip flops, no self-contradictions, no gymnastics mental or otherwise.
 
#1: It is not glorification to state factually that Assange is a whistleblower, and exposes corruption with leaks provided to him, in this case that internal to the DNC, with sunlight.

#2: Assange is not indicted of any crimes. There is no compelling reason to assume guilt regarding allegations, unlike in other cases you stated; presumption of innocence in this case is therefore completely warranted. There fundamentally no evidentiary basis to the allegations other than hearsay which is precisely why it is indeed utterly and completely ridiculous to compare it to infamous miscarriages of justice/controversial verdicts such as the OJ Simpson trial which was steeped in evidence, physical and otherwise, and extensive investigation.

#3: It is indisputable that Assange has powerful and influential enemies, and this performs a rational basis for not trusting the legal process. That having been said, he _has_ cooperated with interview requests within the Ecuador embassy.

#4: It is indisputable that the CIA is and has always been anti-whistleblower regardless of political affiliation. The CIA and its directors have never been a friend of Assange, or indeed anyone similar.

#5: On all of these points I have been completely consistent; no flip flops, no self-contradictions, no gymnastics mental or otherwise.

Those of us with common sense understand that when a man seeks asylum and takes refuge in a small country's Embassy for years to avoid an arrest warrant and in fear of reprisals from at least two countries, Sweden and the United States, he has some serious restraints on his personal freedom and he has aroused the ire of more than a few people.

I compliment the way you embody your namesake and signature. In TrumpSpeak, the surreal has dovetailed with the Twilight Zone. Your Star has risen hastily in our new era of Alternative Facts.
Viva not only Trump and Assange, but also you!

Let us toast Surrealistik's insightful signature - "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." -Alberto Brandolini
 
Was listening to a talk radio show on the way home and he was having callers on about the subject and am curious as to where DP stood.

Heroes no. Good people? Yes.

Assaunge btw cannot be a traitor. At least not a traitor to the US. Only citizens can be traitors. Since Assuange is not a US citizen he cannot be a traitor.
 
Those of us with common sense understand that when a man seeks asylum and takes refuge in a small country's Embassy for years to avoid an arrest warrant and in fear of reprisals from at least two countries, Sweden and the United States, he has some serious restraints on his personal freedom and he has aroused the ire of more than a few people.

I compliment the way you embody your namesake and signature. In TrumpSpeak, the surreal has dovetailed with the Twilight Zone. Your Star has risen hastily in our new era of Alternative Facts.
Viva not only Trump and Assange, but also you!

Yeah, what he said.
 
Those of us with common sense understand that when a man seeks asylum and takes refuge in a small country's Embassy for years to avoid an arrest warrant and in fear of reprisals from at least two countries, Sweden and the United States, he has some serious restraints on his personal freedom and he has aroused the ire of more than a few people.

I'm glad you've at last arrived at that understanding, sarcasm notwithstanding. Yes he has indeed aroused the ire of powerful people for all the wrong (in their view) reasons; namely because they don't want their dirty secrets coming to light, and he has been an annoying obstacle to that end.

I compliment the way you embody your namesake and signature. In TrumpSpeak, the surreal has dovetailed with the Twilight Zone. Your Star has risen hastily in our new era of Alternative Facts.
Viva not only Trump and Assange, but also you!

Again, the irony of accusing me of 'alternative facts' and, by insinuation, 'surrealism/bull****' when you have done something as patently ludicrous as compare totally unproven hearsay allegations against Assange to something as justifably controversial and well-researched as the OJ Simpson trial is certainly appreciated. Nevermind persisting in the assumption of Assange's guilt when there is significantly less evidence (i.e. see none) to implicate him than there was to out Hillary.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you've at last arrived at that understanding, sarcasm notwithstanding. Yes he has indeed aroused ire of powerful people for all the wrong reasons; namely because they don't want their dirty secrets coming to light, and he has been an annoying obstacle to that end.



Again, the irony of accusing me of 'alternative facts' and, by insinuation, 'surrealism/bull****' when you have done something as patently ludicrous as compare totally unproven hearsay allegations against Assange to something as justifably controversial and well-researched as the OJ Simpson trial is certainly appreciated. Nevermind persisting in the assumption of Assange's guilt when there is significantly less evidence (i.e. see none) to implicate him than there was to out Hillary.

Your intransigence has become repetitive and predictable. You continue to live up to your signature and validate my points. Anyone literate who has followed our conversation now knows you deem Assange as a gifted noble man unfairly maligned... and I deem him sleezy, mercenary and as a criminal. Do you plan on staying in your hamster wheel or do you have some new points to add? We have already covered our differences in opinion ad nauseum.
 
Your intransigence has become repetitive and predictable. You continue to live up to your signature and validate my points. Anyone literate who has followed our conversation now knows you deem Assange as a gifted noble man unfairly maligned... and I deem him sleezy, mercenary and as a criminal. Do you plan on staying in your hamster wheel or do you have some new points to add? We have already covered our differences in opinion ad nauseum.

You don't have points; you have a deep seated partisan hatred of a man whose only 'crime' was telling the truth. We're done here in any event.
 
That's not quite true. Conservatives are against big government because big government is full of bureaucracy and costs too much.

One of the largest bureaucracies is recording your phone calls and hacking iPhones, etc. You wouldn't know that if it wasn't for Snowden. He didn't say whether or not they install fart sniffers, but you'll get one of the first ones probably, because you love the government up your rectum. It's all OK. They can legally kill you with a drone, but that's OK with you. They can send a SWAT team to inspect your waste baskets, but that's OK with you. You truly can't see what Snowden did, but he did it for you.
/
 
One of the largest bureaucracies is recording your phone calls and hacking iPhones, etc. You wouldn't know that if it wasn't for Snowden. He didn't say whether or not they install fart sniffers, but you'll get one of the first ones probably, because you love the government up your rectum. It's all OK. They can legally kill you with a drone, but that's OK with you. They can send a SWAT team to inspect your waste baskets, but that's OK with you. You truly can't see what Snowden did, but he did it for you.
/

I don't care if they record my phone calls and hack my iphone. I don't have anything to hide. If that's what they need to do to catch terrorists then I'm ok with that. Please show proof where any of this recording and hacking caused anyone any problems. I feel pretty safe that the government isn't going to kill me with a drone. If a SWAT team wants to inspect my waste baskets I'll make it easy for them. I put my garbage at the end of my driveway every Wednesday evening for Thursday pickup. Snowden actually made me less safe and I hate him for that and I think it is great that he thinks our government is so bad and now he has to live the rest of his life under the Russian government - justice at it's finest.
 
I don't care if they record my phone calls and hack my iphone. I don't have anything to hide. If that's what they need to do to catch terrorists then I'm ok with that. Please show proof where any of this recording and hacking caused anyone any problems. I feel pretty safe that the government isn't going to kill me with a drone. If a SWAT team wants to inspect my waste baskets I'll make it easy for them. I put my garbage at the end of my driveway every Wednesday evening for Thursday pickup. Snowden actually made me less safe and I hate him for that and I think it is great that he thinks our government is so bad and now he has to live the rest of his life under the Russian government - justice at it's finest.

It's not about having something to hide or the harm it's done. It's the principle. It's the invasion of privacy. I am a firm believer that anyone the would give up liberty for security, deserve neither.
 
Assange cannot be a traitor because he's not an American citizen.

My personal opinion is that Snowden is an American hero. He showed courage, bravery, and selflessness. He threw away a great career and life in service of the American people.

Assange is not a traitor to the US because he's not a citizen of the U.S.

Snowden is a hostile actor, who destroyed massive swaths of US collection and placed lives other than his own at risk. IF he had only released the details of the metadata program, then he could have claimed to have been a kind of Civil Disobedience Gone Wrong. Unfortunately, he released massive reams of data far beyond that, exposing how we warn our troops of impending Taliban attacks (hey! then the Taliban dropped off those networks. I wonder if they've managed to successfully launch any attacks lately), how we collect on Al Qa'ida leadership (Hey! then targeting dropped as they all dropped off the nets. I wonder if any organizations which stemmed from Al-Qai'da have managed to make pains of themselves in, oh, say, Iraq and Syria lately), and Russian leadership (Hey!. Then we lost collect on Russia. I wonder if, as a result, they were able to achieve strategic surprise against the United States and invade other countries effectively unhindered!). He took and exposed the names of US people operating under cover in foreign nations - where I work, we had to scramble quite quickly to pull some folks out of country, and they can never go abroad to certain areas ever again because of Snowden (thankfully, we were faster than the Russians were).


Assange is a tool, and a hostile actor, but not a traitor. Snowden is a traitor, and many, many, many other people have paid the price for his actions. If he is eventually executed only once, it will be a fraction of what he deserves. If you don't like the metadata program, that's fine - there's a lot of good, solid, Constitutional arguments to be made in support of your position. But not liking the metadata program is not the same as thinking Snowden is a hero, or any other ****ed up mischaracterization of that asshole. He's about as loyal to this country as the Charleston church shooter was to black people.
 
Last edited:
In my view, both Manning and Snowden were traitors, not whistleblowers and certainly not heroes (except to Russia).

Whistleblowers take a specific piece of information to the proper governmental agency, which then reviews the classified material and whether said material reveals the violation of US law by those from whom the material was taken.

Traitors just dump gigabytes of classified data and hundreds of thousands of classified documents into the public ether, without knowing or caring that lives, and in fact our entire national security, could be put at serious risk. This is exactly what Manning and Snowden did. They are both US citizens; therefore, they are traitors.

Asuange is a slimy bucket of filth, a black-market mercenary who solicits damaging information from all sources, then sells his services to the highest bidder, releasing selected information to benefit his "clients". He's considered a felon for these actions in many countries, including the USA. I hope we are able to extradite the worm, and after a public trial, throw him into a festering rathole prison and throw away the key.

So I voted "other", and this is my explanation as to why.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom