A very QUICK question about Julian Assange

[GrGr]

All I see is a bunch of libertarian-anarchist platitudes without any regard for the reality of diplomacy and war.

"The reality of diplomacy and war"... Wth does that even mean? The reality as revealed by Wikileaks is that the US supports murder, drug-running, torture, pedofilia, bribery, corruption... etc. Nothing new here ofcourse, but it just disgusts me that some people openly support that kind of shit.

So do you think the D-day invasion plan shouldn't have been kept secret?

What a pitiful attempt at a red herring. Fyi, back then it was the Nazi's that mostly employed the methods used by the US today and they were deemed bad enough to fight a valid war against. Now the boot is on the other foot. Sieg Heil.

 

[Craig234]

There's nothing stopping Assange from only publishing the things that need to be leaking, like the Afghan boylove. But that's not what he did. He doesn't even read everything he releases.

The critical sites leak is pure malice. If the sites were well known, and not just knowable through research, the list wouldn't need to be made in the first place.

There is a review process for what's released as I understand it, involving for one thing staff at newspapers.

I don't know what was in the Pentagon papers.

A 7000 page highest confidentiality report of the history of the Vietnam War from 1945 to the Tet Offensive, ordered by Robert McNamara to learn how things went so wrong.

It exposed a variety of deception of the public by each President leading the US to war.

 

[Throckmorton]

There is a review process for what's released as I understand it, involving for one thing staff at newspapers.

He only read a small percentage of the Afghanistan leaks. Then, after catching so much flack for outing the Afghan informants they beefed up the redacting process (but they said it was only because they it was a distraction they didn't need).

A 7000 page highest confidentiality report of the history of the Vietnam War from 1945 to the Tet Offensive, ordered by Robert McNamara to learn how things went so wrong.

It exposed a variety of deception of the public by each President leading the US to war.

How is that similar to diplomatic cables that show no wrongdoing, only diplomats doing their jobs well?

 

[Craig234]

He only read a small percentage of the Afghanistan leaks. Then, after catching so much flack for outing the Afghan informants they beefed up the redacting process (but they said it was only because they it was a distraction they didn't need).



How is that similar to diplomatic cables that show no wrongdoing, only diplomats doing their jobs well?

I asked you first. Ellsberg was accused of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy', of beign a 'traitor' for 'harming the nation's war effort'. Do you approve or disapprove?

 

[FTM0305]

I don't get how "free speech" can include publishing secret information but not copyrighted material. Either it's absolute or it's not. Obviously free speech isn't absolute. So why would it be considered absolute when it comes to an anarchist hell bent on damaging the West? Why wouldn't it also apply to Russian spies and the like?

Secret information if registered with any copyright group would be publicly viewable, just like US Patents. So they wouldn't be exactly secret anymore.



When it comes down to it. Assange's wikileaks has embarrassed the US and showed how the US foreign policy works outside the public press release. He's a public target for extreme political groups to demonize in order to raise support among constituents.


i've read through a number a of the cables myself. I find them to be interesting. Some shed light on political manuevers in Afganistan and Iraq, while others gives opinion about political climate among different groups. Some of the cables seem like they were wrongly classified.

In all though, it serves the US gov right to be so uptight about secrecy. If you want something to really be secret, you release a bunch of public information and keep the real secrets from even coming up.

I argue with a guy at work about this subject all the time. he argues that expossing government commincation is akin to leaking corporate emails. They are not meant to be public and may hurt the group originating the emails. thus it is against the interest of the government to be so defamed.

I argue that it is in the interest of the american people to know how their governement's forigen policy is enacted as it is a subject that is debated within major elections. I don't understand how we American's can vote for representatives if we don't know what the government is up to.

Thats my two cents.