So I ask again–why are we punishing Assange at all, when the last time a case like this came before the Supreme Court there was a fair bit of concurrence with the idea that a journalist is not breaking any laws by publishing secret materials leaked to him? What has he done wrong by the laws of his country of residence? Or are you equating this with an act of espionage or war rather than an act of journalism–and if you are, do you see how easily THAT power could be abused? “We HAD to kill him/ruin his life, he was going to publish leaked state secrets that he didn’t steal or do anything unethical to acquire!”
And do you think that going off half-cocked and martyring Assange is going to make it LESS likely that people will be leaking stuff they have access to and giving it to people who’ll publish it? Frankly, we should be patting Assange on the back–and admittedly throwing the book at unauthorized leakers–and making our actions such that A) leakers don’t feel morally obligated to report them to the world at large and B) people who might feel that way never get access to the documents.
An enlightened and informed electorate is the basis of a good American system. Assange is just letting people know what corporations and governments are capable of when their actions are shrouded in secrecy. I see no reason to blame Assange. He did not give tax money to a dictator and prop up governments that oppressed and killed its people. He did not invent new and exciting ways for financial pros to loot and lie to their clients. He did not assassinate foreign leaders.
He is letting us know what our leaders do behind closed doors. I can not wait until he releases the Bank of America info. We need to know how badly and unethically they acted.
I’m going to ask you the opposite question I am asking Magellan01: Do you agree that people who commit crimes or behave unethically to leak the information TO Assange (like Manning) ought to be punished according to the law, or should we let them off scot-free?
The problem is when information is classified to conceal violations of law. That is not permissible. Much of what is coming out was self serving. They were hiding what they do to escape scrutiny and the law.
Why do people leak? Not to harm the government but to let the people know what the government is doing that is wrong. Leaks generally perform a good public service. Wikileaks is no different. We should applaud them for their guts and public service.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the American public could decide of that is true or not? Based on some of things released, I would say it is not mostly imaginary. As long as a certain class of citizens is allowed to suppress any information they don’t like then the rest of us don’t really have the means to judge their actions. So convenient for them.
I get the impression your grasp of national security, the people, organizations, methods, policies, procedures, standards and vested authority is somewhat limited.
What crimes have been covered up? I noted earlier that what appears to be revelations of the “Collateral Murder” case hasn’t resulted in any investigations, indictments, or convictions, so far as I am aware. If you have specific evidence of actual crimes being uncovered by the leaks, please share them.
Perhaps we should just release the names of all the spies we have in foreign governments, so the American people can judge for themselves if they are trustworthy people. Is that how you want it to work? What can possibly go wrong?
If the bankers are truly doing something that may devestate the economy whistle-blowing is justified but in many cases nothing would have happened had the whistle-blower did not reveal certain facts but because due to their action companies have fell and many people have lost their jobs. The executives of course get “golden parachutes”-its the lower-level workers who are really hurt.
What enemies do you speak of?
It sounds exciting until you realize other countries know what horrors we visit on the rest of the globe.
The bankers do claim to be acting in the best interest of America and the economy. They do not admit they are looting the people.
The swaps and mortgages certificates they sold around the world collapsed several economies. It has wreaked financial havoc throwing millions out of work and into foreclosure. Other countries know damn well who was running the banks and creating sophisticated and complicated ways to fleece the investors.
Iran, North Korea, Venezeula, Cuba to name the most important ones not to mention private individuals and organizations (such as Al-Qaeda)
If not taking action by releasing such documents and bringing the bankers down will cause financial collapses than I do think documents should be leaked.
I don’t understand this. Assange himself has claimed that he’s afraid of being killed or renditioned (60 Minutes). He’s a public figure who is potential assassination target. Why can’t we discuss that? And assuming we can, why can’t I argue that his assassination would be justified or helpful?
Living in fear are you? They are kids on the world stage. Afraid of Cuba? What design does Venezuela have for us? None of your countries are a threat at all.
Wikileaks has ,they claim, inside Emails from Bank of America. The bank was lying to its customers and selling them instruments they knew were bad. They knew the mortgages were bogus, ye tpackaged and sold them to investors across the world. The leaks would likely make the world feel better about or banking system. The possible clients would have the foolish notion that the financial thieves had learned a lesson.
If these questions gets answered, I’d like to append my own, namely why can’t I point out that kiling Assange doesn’t accomplish anything (and thus is not justified), since what Assange does can really be done anywhere by virtually anyone, and the notion that him being killed will inspire fear is pointless since others (myself being a specific example) will not be cowed?
I think only one poster is freaking out, but the problem with this point is that ignores that Assange has only gotten his hands on molehills. And with those, he and his organization have acted irresponsibly (specifically, naming informants). If he gets a hold of something significant and that truly should remain secret, I don’t have confidence that he will keep it so. I have confidence that the more traditional media will.
As far as what has been leaked, the reality is that I don’t specifically recall anything in the documents that we didn’t already know. That doesn’t mean everything should be public. Diplomacy is a constant negotiation, and showing your hand to everyone is stupid. In that sense, the U.S. has been damaged, but probably nothing significant.
magellan01, I did not claim that you could not argue for a position that would include the assassination of a private person who has not broken any laws, (although I find that sort of argument silly); I told you to stop calling for his murder–currently still a crime in the U.S. That Assange claims he fears it only means that he wants to portray himself as a martyr, not that killing him stops being against the law.
Brayn Ekers, I did not tell you to stop arguing that murdering Assange would be silly and fruitless; I told you to stop trying to bait magellan01. Don’t try to change the subject.
No threat? Do you not know Iran supports Islamist terrorism and wishes to wipe off Israel “off the map” which would cause general nuclear war in the Middle East? Do you not know North Korea is under the rule of psychotic Stalinists whose aggressive posturing has been obvious in the sinking of the Cheonanham and shelling of Yeonpyeong-Do and who are armed with nukes that can attack American allies? They can’t destroy us but they can give us a bloody nose if the sentiments of our leaders were that of you.
Again would the benefits exceed the harm caused? For instance suppose this causes the collapse of the Bank of America causing a second dip in the Recession?
I’m not sure how it’s possible to challenge his position without challenging him, since his position is that killing Assange is okay, and since the goal is to scare people from following in his footsteps, then by implication it is also okay to threaten to kill anyone who does, and I would. If anything, I’d expect quite a lot of people to feel that if magellan believes it’s justifiable to kill Assange, he also believes it’s justifiable to kill them, too, since they side with Assange.
In short, what he’s saying is rather offensive (or at least it should be) to anyone who values the idea of freedom of expression and openness of government. He deserves to be told that his beliefs, if put into action, would not politely limit themselves to just eliminating Assange. To have any meaning, he should be prepared to sanction the elimination of a great many people, and even then the technical realities of electronic communication make the effort futile, anyway.
That’s all I need to say on this subject. I’ll leave the thread.
Assange and opportunistic crackpots like him and his minions feeding him trash are the least of our worries. He is no different than any other businessmen in illicit trades of all types. Insiders with access to valuable information who sell it to our enemies are the ones we worry about and focus intense scrutiny and countermeasures on. The whole Wikileaks fiasco is nothing but a sideshow to the people who are really concerned about protecting out national security. You can bet your bottom dollar if Assange ever actually gets his hands on something the Chinese, Russinas or Iranians really consider valuable through misplacement in intermediate channels or whatever SNAFU the idiots manage to create, he most certainly will be a dead man. They play by different rules than we do.