- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I agree. The one thing I like about wikileaks is that it allows ME to read, without spin, what happened, what was said, etc. What media outlet can we say that about in the U.S. these days?
I was just trying to speak your language, bro.
You went all philosophical on me, instead of just answering the question. Does that information warrant being known or not?
There was nothing philosophical about what I said. I merely pointed out that ends don't justify the means and two wrongs don't make a right.
The problem is that I didn't ask if two wrongs made a right. I asked if the information warranted being shared with the American public. That's a yes or no question, not an essay, bro.
The answer has been given. You just don't like it or don't comprehend it. Either way, your question was answered.
Hoy. Can you not see that the ends don't always justify the means?
Please point out the answer in your response:
Value to me and the right thing to do are two wholly separate issues. It's like walking in on your wife having an affair. When she see's you she exclaims "He gave me herpies and you probably have it to." Now, was it wrong of here to have the affair? Absolutely! Was it helpful for her to tell me about the herpies? Absolutely! Does that make the affair ok? Hell no!
So, what you're saying is that you're glad the information about this terrible wrongdoing came to light, but you're squeamish about the method? Did I accurately interpret your "hoy"?
It is absolutely wrong for this person to steal documents and release them
putting innocent people in harms way,
Further, because of his method, the US will be absolved of all issues (serious or not). They will be absolved like Letterman was absolved when he was blackmailed. The world has a forgiving eye for those that are made the victim regardless of their wrongs.
So, no matter how you approach this, it was wrong for him to release this information. He is directly responsible for hurting people, he didn't accomplish his goals and he did it all in violation of the law. It was a triple lose.
Oh, and, because all this information was obtained illegally, companies like Dyncorp now have immunity for their crimes. Does that make you happy?
Most people agree that it was wrong for Private Manning to leak classified documents.
Who was put in harm's way by leaking the cable about dyncorp?
There's a difference between leaking the documents and publishing them.
I see no evidence of this.
What laws did Assange violate?
It doesn't work like that, bro. That's a check on governmental powers. The government (city, state, county, federal) cannot illegally collect evidence on you, in violation of your rights, and then prosecute you using that evidence. There are no such protections for the government. Dyncorp has zero immunity because these cables were leaked. :roll:
When you make comments like that, it makes me wonder if you understand the topic.
They Dyncorp employees that had absolutely nothing to do with/knowledge of the accused activities...of which the "evidence" is rather weak any way.
No there isn't.
Soliciting classified documents.
Actually, it does work like that. Because the person that leaked the information is a government employee and the people that would be held accountable do have rights, none of the information is useable.
Evidence to support this claim?
Actually, there is. See Pentagon Papers.
You mean Julian Assange personally contacted Private Manning and asked him to leak classified documents? That's what soliciting means.
WikiLeaks said:http://213.251.145.96/submissions.html
1. Material we accept
Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance.
Really? You need proof that Dyncorp employees are damaged by accusations that may or may not be true?
You didn't even read the linked document, did you? :roll:
Atmar then disclosed the arrest of two Afghan National Police (ANP) and nine other Afghans (including RTC language assistants) as part of an MoI investigation into Afghan "facilitators" of the event. The crime he was pursuing was "purchasing a service from a child,"
He continued to predict that publicity would "endanger lives."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?