• 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

What do you think of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

  • War Criminal against US

    Votes: 6 21.4%

  • Humanitarian

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Unsure but irrelevant I believe WikiLeaks motivation is justice

    Votes: 11 39.3%

  • He is a spy trying to put Americans in harms way

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • I have no opinion

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Total voters
    28
apdst said:
The Rosenbergs got a strong reaction from the Federal Government, too. Do you give them a thumbsup, as well?
Click to expand...

I believe I addressed this a post or two ago.

Why is it that when someone disagrees with you, a reference to socialism or communism is the best comeback you've got?

apdst said:
Well spoken, for someone who never put on the uniform.
Click to expand...

Why, thank you! That's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day. :D
 
RightinNYC said:
Yea, but who decides which category each document falls into?

This is the fatal flaw with all of the arguments in support of what wikileaks does. It sounds all patriotic and free speechey to say that the government shouldn't be allowed to censor things that are merely embarrassing, but it's not possible to have a system that would only do that. In a system where places like wikileaks exist, the judgment call about what is or is not important to the state is no longer being made by high ranking officials with access to all the relevant information, but by individual hackers and foreign nationals will varied motives and interests. I might have my doubts about whether the government is always acting in my best interest, but I certainly trust them a ****load more than some random dude in Australia or Bolivia.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

I think that the use of classification, like many of the authorities that the many-headed hydra that is our government wields like a cudgel, is in need of reform.

Failing that, in the mean time, if Wikileaks broke the law it broke the law, and any participant on American soil or in lawful American custody should be tried and punished accordingly.

That said, I'm rooting for him.
 
RightinNYC said:
Side note: Imagine that instead of being a white Australian, Assange was from Syria, Venezuela, or China. Do you think people's opinions of wikileaks would be different?
Click to expand...

Mine wouldn't, if he was doing exactly the same thing.

At the same time, I don't think those Americans with access would be quite so quick to submit material.
 
Hatuey said:
I think what most people calling him an asshole haven't realized is that Assange's work has brought attention to issues which the world wouldn't care about. He's revealed the killings carried out by the U.S. funded governments. Most people on the left didn't complain when he released information on the cult of scientology and the names of members in the NBP. Most right wing people on this forum didn't really complain when he released those e-mails between the climatologists or the nuclear accident in Iran. Are we all supposed to complain because he's released something some people may disagree with? This man should be held up as a patriot in the fight against global censorship.
Click to expand...

Government classified documents are classified for a reason. Whether any particular document should be classified can be debated, but just mass releasing them is not an acceptable way to handle that disagreement. I disapproved of the war in Iraq. Alot of the documents coming out show I was right in my disapproval. However, they should not have been released like this. There is a system in place to unclassified documents, and that system should be used. If you don't like the system, work to change it. Random people taking it on themselves to decide what should and should not be classified is not acceptable.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I totally agree with you.

I think that the use of classification, like many of the authorities that the many-headed hydra that is our government wields like a cudgel, is in need of reform.

Failing that, in the mean time, if Wikileaks broke the law it broke the law, and any participant on American soil or in lawful American custody should be tried and punished accordingly.

That said, I'm rooting for him.
Click to expand...

I just don't see why you would be rooting for him. I mean, I understand the appeal of fighting censorship, but this is far beyond that. At any point, Assange or anyone else could decide to start releasing everything they come across, regardless of whether it's "merely embarassing" or actually dangerous to the country. You're placing your faith in the good judgment and reasonableness of a paranoid nutjob with delusions of grandeur.
 
Redress said:
Government classified documents are classified for a reason. Whether any particular document should be classified can be debated, but just mass releasing them is not an acceptable way to handle that disagreement. I disapproved of the war in Iraq. Alot of the documents coming out show I was right in my disapproval. However, they should not have been released like this. There is a system in place to unclassified documents, and that system should be used. If you don't like the system, work to change it. Random people taking it on themselves to decide what should and should not be classified is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

But . . . isn't that essentially the way stuff gets classified? Some person we've never known nor will ever know (essentially a random person) taking it upon themselves to decide what should and should not be classified?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
But . . . isn't that essentially the way stuff gets classified? Some person we've never known nor will ever know (essentially a random person) taking it upon themselves to decide what should and should not be classified?
Click to expand...

There is a process for that too. Further, it's not a random person, it is a person who has been promoted through the system and given the job based on performance. In fact, it's kinda the opposite of random.
 
Someone I've never known nor will ever know is, in my view, a random person.

I don't really care how who certifies or promotes or evaluates them -- they are a perfect stranger.

As for the process, there's so much stuff that ends up under wraps just to save face that the process is meaningless.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Someone I've never known nor will ever know is, in my view, a random person.

I don't really care how who certifies or promotes or evaluates them -- they are a perfect stranger.

As for the process, there's so much stuff that ends up under wraps just to save face that the process is meaningless.
Click to expand...

So it's a random person, if you change the meaning of "random" to something completely different?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I believe I addressed this a post or two ago.

Why is it that when someone disagrees with you, a reference to socialism or communism is the best comeback you've got?



Why, thank you! That's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day. :D
Click to expand...

Actually, I was making reference to the two traitors, who gave the secrets to the atomic bomb, to the enemy.
 
Hatuey said:
I think what most people calling him an asshole haven't realized is that Assange's work has brought attention to issues which the world wouldn't care about. He's revealed the killings carried out by the U.S. funded governments. Most people on the left didn't complain when he released information on the cult of scientology and the names of members in the NBP. Most right wing people on this forum didn't really complain when he released those e-mails between the climatologists or the nuclear accident in Iran. Are we all supposed to complain because he's released something some people may disagree with? This man should be held up as a patriot in the fight against global censorship.
Click to expand...

None of that could possibly result in the deaths of American servicemen.

As TED pointed out, being a member of the military is--by it's very nature--dangerous. However, our service members deserve the highest level of safety and security that the government can provide.
 
Leaks to prove that the US is turning a blind eye to human rights violations and covering up innocent deaths: Yes.

Leaks that name locals who help coalition forces and reveal future coalition strategies: No.

Why is people spending more time criticizing Assange than the idiots who are covering up this bloodied mess?
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Someone I've never known nor will ever know is, in my view, a random person.

I don't really care how who certifies or promotes or evaluates them -- they are a perfect stranger.

As for the process, there's so much stuff that ends up under wraps just to save face that the process is meaningless.
Click to expand...

The random person in the government who evaluates them is doing so according to the guidelines of the government and in the interests of the country. The random person outside the government is releasing whatever he wants. That's a huge difference, IMO.
 
apdst said:
Actually, I was making reference to the two traitors, who gave the secrets to the atomic bomb, to the enemy.
Click to expand...

Which just happened to be communist.

Paging Mr. McCarthy! Mr. McCarthy, your party is waiting for you in the Julian Assange thread!
 
apdst said:
None of that could possibly result in the deaths of American servicemen.

As TED pointed out, being a member of the military is--by it's very nature--dangerous. However, our service members deserve the highest level of safety and security that the government can provide.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'd object to operational data being released.
 
kaya'08 said:
Leaks to prove that the US is turning a blind eye to human rights violations and covering up innocent deaths: Yes.

Leaks that name locals who help coalition forces and reveal future coalition strategies: No.
Click to expand...

So who decides which is which? Who ensures that they don't just end up releasing everything they come across?

Why is people spending more time criticizing Assange than the idiots who are covering up this bloodied mess?
Click to expand...

Because the threat that accompanies someone leaking classified information with no limitations is infinitely greater than the threat that accompanies a country seeking to downplay bad actions like every other country in history.
 
RightinNYC said:
The random person in the government who evaluates them is doing so according to the guidelines of the government and in the interests of the country. The random person outside the government is releasing whatever he wants. That's a huge difference, IMO.
Click to expand...

I've seen far too many examples of government agents who believed (or claimed) they were acting in the best interests of the country and yet turned out to be unworthy of my trust.

I refuse to trust the random person in the government just because they're in the government, and as I've said the "guidelines" have protected too much data strictly to keep reputations from being tarnished for me to care about them.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No.

I'm saying that Julian Assange is just as random to me as the government agent classifying material.
Click to expand...

Except there is a large difference. Assange's qualifications are that he owns a website, whereas the people who classify material have actual written job requirements and standards to adhere to.
 
Redress said:
Except there is a large difference. Assange's qualifications are that he owns a website, whereas the people who classify material have actual written job requirements and standards to adhere to.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant, since I have no way of verifying that they fullfill those requirements or adhere to those standards. I know nothing about them.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Completely irrelevant, since I have no way of verifying that they fullfill those requirements or adhere to those standards. I know nothing about them.
Click to expand...

If they where not fulfilling those requirements or adhering to those standards, they would be removed from the job. The DoD and the military take job performance very seriously.
 
Well, I'm glad you feel better.

I've seen and studied the ugly side of our many bureaucracies and governmental departments often enough that I abjectly refuse to blindly trust someone whose face I'll never even see just because they have a badge or an ID card or a certification or a clearance.
 
RightinNYC said:
So who decides which is which? Who ensures that they don't just end up releasing everything they come across?
Click to expand...

Assange. But he is clearly too reckless and too indecent to do such a thing. Thus i cannot say i support his whistle blowing completely, however my point was that it is ludicrous that anger is being concentrated on him only. The US government deserves its share for its hypocrisy.

Because the threat that accompanies someone leaking classified information with no limitations is infinitely greater than the threat that accompanies a country seeking to downplay bad actions like every other country in history.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't answer the question, this is not merely a matter of downplaying actions (because these are serious allegations). We have found evidence of the US allowing human rights abuses to go unnoticed and we have caught the US government lying about the number of civilian deaths. The US government has a legitimate concern in regards to Assange, however, they are using this opportunity to divert the attention for there own crimes and people are buying into it. Where is the finger pointing at the US government?

Unless the US government apologizes and takes the necessary actions to ensure the public such a thing will not happen again, they really have no ground to say Assange threatens troops when it is clear the government has no respect for human life as it is.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
None of that could possibly result in the deaths of American servicemen.

As TED pointed out, being a member of the military is--by it's very nature--dangerous. However, our service members deserve the highest level of safety and security that the government can provide.
Click to expand...

Documents don't get people killed. Unwanted occupations do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom