WikiLeaks' Assange complains he's victim of leaks

[sandorski]

Where does the "no evidence" talking point come from? I've seen it repeated in so many places.

You're missing the point. Julian Assange harmed those people by releasing their identities. If the KKK is killing civil rights sympathizers, and you release a list of their identities, you have done harm to those people regardless of whether the KKK is able to kill them.

Who has been hurt?

Anyway, as I also stated, they have attempted to avoid doing that since. Assenge and Wikileaks are no monsters or anything akin to Terrorists.

 

[Throckmorton]

One, you're snitching your neighbour to the Government, which gets him/her killed.

The other, you're snitching your Government to your neighbour, which gets it (?).

How is snitching on Afghan informants to the Taliban (they execute informants) the same as snitching on the gov to your neighbor?

 

[sandorski]

How is snitching on Afghan informants to the Taliban (they execute informants) the same as snitching on the gov to your neighbor?

Fail, srsly.

 

[Throckmorton]

Who has been hurt?

Anyway, as I also stated, they have attempted to avoid doing that since. Assenge and Wikileaks are no monsters or anything akin to Terrorists.

The people whose names were leaked were hurt, by being outed.

Yes, they started redacting more, but Assange stated that they never did anything wrong in the first place, and just want to avoid the distraction. They basically said "we didn't do anything wrong, but those stupid human rights groups and the government attacked us for releasing those names, so we'll stop doing it". He never admitted he was wrong, but did the exact opposite.

 

[Throckmorton]

Fail, srsly.

Really? Explain?

I think you, along with a bunch of otherwise reasonable liberals and libertarians hitched your wagon to the Wikileaks horse, and now you're stuck defending Assange's misdeeds.

 

[Throckmorton]

Here's another analogy.

Let's say I know a gay soldier. What if I out him to the army? Am I doing him harm? Maybe the paperwork fell through the cracks and he is never discharged-- does that mean I didn't do harm to him by outing his orientation?

 

[sandorski]

Really? Explain?

I think you, along with a bunch of otherwise reasonable liberals and libertarians hitched your wagon to the Wikileaks horse, and now you're stuck defending Assange's misdeeds.

He didn't "snitch" on them. They were collateral damage to be sure, but no ill will is being directed.

Lame deflection on your part.

 

[sandorski]

Here's another analogy.

Let's say I know a gay soldier. What if I out him to the army? Am I doing him harm? Maybe the paperwork fell through the cracks and he is never discharged-- does that mean I didn't do harm to him by outing his orientation?

Still a lame deflection.

 

[Throckmorton]

He didn't "snitch" on them. They were collateral damage to be sure, but no ill will is being directed.

Lame deflection on your part.

He had no reason to release those peoples' identities. If he didn't have time to redact everything, then he should have only released documents that didn't reveal any informants. Assange made a choice.

 

[thegimp03]

Oh the irony, lol.

 

[sandorski]

He had no reason to release those peoples' identities. If he didn't have time to redact everything, then he should have only released documents that didn't reveal any informants. Assange made a choice.

He did make a choice, but your twist is ridiculous.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

To those that continually want to harp on the suspicion that people may have been hurt by the Wikileaks release, why are you not focusing on the fact that the US Government was asked for help going through the documents to prevent exactly that and that the US Government patently refused to offer that assistance. The documents were leaked, there was no stopping them from going public, but on some misguided principle the US Government decided to not actively participate in preventing harm to others prior to the release to the general public.

And I really laugh at those stating he's upset about his information being leaked. You really are a dense bunch aren't you.

 

[Throckmorton]

To those that continually want to harp on the suspicion that people may have been hurt by the Wikileaks release, why are you not focusing on the fact that the US Government was asked for help going through the documents to prevent exactly that and that the US Government patently refused to offer that assistance. The documents were leaked, there was no stopping them from going public, but on some misguided principle the US Government decided to not actively participate in preventing harm to others prior to the release to the general public.

And I really laugh at those stating he's upset about his information being leaked. You really are a dense bunch aren't you.

The government can't legitimize espionage.

 

[JSt0rm]

And I really laugh at those stating he's upset about his information being leaked. You really are a dense bunch aren't you.

on these forums no one will admit they are wrong. You just wont see them again in that thread. And then the next day they are back spouting the same crap. You cant shake their belief systems with anything, as byzantine as they are.

 

[Svnla]

What he did is what reporters used to do. They would dig up facts and do investigative stories to expose things in our government. Without that we have dark and murky corners for bad things to grow.

I find it amazing that those of you who mistrust the government most would turn a blind eye to this information. Why is it we have a alarmist thread about homeland security wanting to do some climate stuff? Why do we not trust them but we trust these shady corners of government with no oversight?

You can't be serious. This guy and his gang and the dude/dudest that steal the classified information are the same as news reporters?

Where and when did they go out and interview the people involved or investigate the stories on their own dime and time?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

The government can't legitimize espionage.

~snip long way of saying~ There are many ways they could have assisted in "cleansing" the documents without overtly stating they did so. To make your statement is absolving them of blame where blame is due and vilifying the messenger. This is precisely why steps were not taken to assist in "cleansing" these documents. It's perfect ammunition to discredit the source.

 

[JEDIYoda]

To those that continually want to harp on the suspicion that people may have been hurt by the Wikileaks release, why are you not focusing on the fact that the US Government was asked for help going through the documents to prevent exactly that and that the US Government patently refused to offer that assistance. The documents were leaked, there was no stopping them from going public, but on some misguided principle the US Government decided to not actively participate in preventing harm to others prior to the release to the general public.

Thats an urban myth.......sorry to pop your bubble...

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Thats an urban myth.......sorry to pop your bubble...

Oh my god, stop with the lies! Urban myth, are you really that far removed from reality?

http://www.voanews.com/english/news...ks-on-Review-of-War-Documents--100996339.html


There's one source stating exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. There's many others out there if you don't care for that source. Do not help absolve the Government of its part in any release that put people "in harm's way."

 

[JSt0rm]

Thats an urban myth.......sorry to pop your bubble...

urban myth? lmao.

 

[HendrixFan]

You can't be serious. This guy and his gang and the dude/dudest that steal the classified information are the same as news reporters?

Where and when did they go out and interview the people involved or investigate the stories on their own dime and time?

They collaborated with 5 legit media sources in reviewing the materials and redacting information that could somehow be used to harm someone.

 

[Throckmorton]

They started working with the media to redact AFTER the Afghanistan leaks. Julian's explanation was that the outing of the informants was a distraction with the previous leaks.

He considers it collateral damage http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/julian-assange-collateral-murderer

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aks-boss-Julian-Assange-force-good-chaos.html

 

[Genx87]

Hilarious. Reminds me of some guy who ran a company that spammed people with mail back in the 1990s. Once it was found out where he lived people signed him up for everything and he complained about the amount of mail he was receiving lol

 

[airdata]

Whoops... I had sex without a condom.

Am I going to be extradited to Sweden?

 

[Svnla]

They collaborated with 5 legit media sources in reviewing the materials and redacting information that could somehow be used to harm someone.

Again, WHERE AND WHEN did they (WikiLeaks) send their people to Iraq/Afgan/other places to gather information and interview people on their own time and dime? You know, like other news organizations such as AP, Christian Science Monitor, etc. Collaborated with other news organizations AFTER they posted the stolen classified information is being called as "investigate reporting" now? I must missed that memo.

The other poster said ("What he did is what reporters used to do. They would dig up facts and do investigative stories to expose things in our government" ) WikiLeaks is the same/similar as investigate reporters and I did not see Assan or his people did any of the hard work of investigation.