The moral standards of Wikileaks' critics

Cheney, Bush and Libby deliberately released information to harm a specific person who’s husband did not play along with the program for war that Bush wanted. Wilson gave an honest appraisal of the Yellow Cake. When the Bushies did not like it, they specifically tried to do harm to him and his wife. the fact that they would do harm to others in the agency at the same time did not matter to them.
Assange believes, apparently that too much of the actions a government takes are kept secret without a good reason. The interplay between diplomats would be better if they had an inkling that it would become public. Maybe it would improve the discourse and make them more honest.
They are not the same thing at all.

CITE? All of this is false. It was demonstrated that Armitage released the name, and inadvertently, at that, and it wasn’t a crime. Why do people like you continually repeat this obvious, proven falsehood?

I am a weak critic of the leaks. I think that there are legitimate needs for confidentiality and secrecy.

For example, the President’s advisor’s rely on confidentiality in order to feel free to give him the most honest appraisals they can. If they knew that their memo’s would become public, they may not be fully forth coming in the future. For example, they may not pseudo-publicly challenge the assertion of another cabinet member.

I can also agree that the Government needs to be kept under some kind of over sight (thus, transparency). There must be some happy middle ground between classifying everything, and publishing everything. Unfortunately, Assuange took it upon himself to take the decision(s) out of the hands of our elected officials and made his (possibly less informed) decision trump theirs.

I don’t want Assuange dead. I would not be surprised if we can’t even prosecute the guy at all. So while I don’t exactly fit the pattern in the OP’s thesis, I don’t see a whole lot of hyposcrisy in critics of Assuange who want him dead. Those folks just assume Assuange put some American lives in jeapardy.

My apologies for mispelling Assange multiple times. :smack:

He took that decision out of the hands of our elected officials by proving they cannot be trusted to make the decision. There is no reason to honour their self-serving demands for a lack of oversight once they prove that they are willing to betray that trust.

Yeah, it’s a real betrayal of the American people when a diplomat informs Washington that Khadaffi has a busty blonde nurse, or that the Italian Prime Minister is too cozy with Putin.

Oh, my god, what have those politicians wrought?

The outrage at Wikileaks is the rage of Caliban, seeing his own face in a glass.

These cables are proof our foreign state employees are doing their jobs. This is exactly what they’re supposed to do, unfortunately it’s not what we want in public.

So you’re trying to hook up with this chick and it’s going really well. Suddenly she gets a text message listing all the smack talk your brother’s been saying about her. It’s not untrue but thats irrelevant.

That’s what we’re dealing with.

There’s no absolute morality here. If it were Iran’s secrets being exposed, they’d cheer. If it were Canada’s, they wouldn’t care. It’s entirely, “How dare he give me what I have coming!?”

What Gonzomax said, and also, Assange never swore loyalty to the US of A. He owes us nothing in that regard. The same cannot be said of Bush, Cheney and Libby.

I think non-American citizens have a right—no, a duty—to find out by any means if a foreign government is acting against their interests.

Fine. Doesn’t mean that they get to do so scot-free. If you want to mess with a boxer, better learn how to take a punch.


Perhaps America can send in its famed special forces to assassinate him? The same ones who massacred the pupils at a boys boarding school in Afghanistan thinking it was a terrorist cell (Wikileak’d, by the way). Either that, or you can use your spies that you’ve seemingly planted in every friendly nation’s government to persuade the UK or Sweden to hand him over?

Americans can carry on whining like bitches all they want. The fact of the matter is, if Assange gets extradited to Sweden, he’s essentially safe. Swedish extradition law is a lot more stringent (especially in regards to extraditions to the US) than its British counterpart. Further, you’re still assuming that Assange has done something illegal in the US. What will you charge him under? Kindly name the law that Assange, not Bradley Manning, has broken.

Perhaps you should go back to re-read my posts that you have already quoted.

Did I say he should be killed? No.

Did I say that “to the extent that [Assange] has broken” valid US laws, he should serve whatever time he merits? Yes.

If you want to have an argument with Sarah Palin on assassinating Assange, I’m sure you can find her Facebook page. If you want to debate me on this subject, please pay attention to what I have actually said and respond to those points.

I am raging really hard on that one. But even our own media doesn’t care if we allow US agents to abduct and torture our citizens. The cables on most of our politicians are spot on - a bunch of incompetent cowards.

…those who like Wikileaks will have to shut up when someone leaks their own personal infomation (bank accounts, passwords, the stuff you buy). Then tell me.
We all love it when it’s someone else and it’s easy to justify it, but when your mom’s medical records go public or your kid’s report cards…that’s always “different”.

[QUOTE=Sablicious;13212071 the US govt can even take this kind of idiotically obvious tact and keep a straight face,[/QUOTE]

Nitpick: It’s “tack”, not tact.

Assange has specifically stated that that kind of information is regarded by him as legitimate secrets, not to be leaked.

Evil people are not hypocrites every time they call for nasty to be done to their opponents when they have not called for nastiness for someone from their tribe who has done the same thing. That’s just tribalism. These people do not think.

When a thinking person, such as Bill Bennett espouses morality and virtue his whole life and then gets caught pissing away millions at casinos, that is hypocrisy because he pretended to be a thoughtful, moral and virtuous person, when in reality he is a sick loser playing slot machines in his underwear in his hotel room so that he cannot be seen for the sick loser he is.

The country has a large population of people who pretend to be something they are not for the purpose of fleecing the masses. They may be human, but they are hypocrites and disgusting Elmer Gantry types.

Hell, yes. I don’t understand the apathy of the media. But I hope for some longterm consequences: we are already relieved of the post-war political generation that could either see nothing wrong with American influence or furthered it shamelessly. And though the public hasn’t reacted much to the revelations, the “incompetent cowards”-label might stick and help to further a more critical and firmer attitude.

I think, this new kind of journalism is a much needed and long overdue adaptation to the multilateral world that we live in. We, the people, have become very transparent to political and economical powers. It’s time that we get to see through some walls in return.