- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The Rosenbergs got a strong reaction from the Federal Government, too. Do you give them a thumbsup, as well?
Well spoken, for someone who never put on the uniform.
Yea, but who decides which category each document falls into?
This is the fatal flaw with all of the arguments in support of what wikileaks does. It sounds all patriotic and free speechey to say that the government shouldn't be allowed to censor things that are merely embarrassing, but it's not possible to have a system that would only do that. In a system where places like wikileaks exist, the judgment call about what is or is not important to the state is no longer being made by high ranking officials with access to all the relevant information, but by individual hackers and foreign nationals will varied motives and interests. I might have my doubts about whether the government is always acting in my best interest, but I certainly trust them a ****load more than some random dude in Australia or Bolivia.
Side note: Imagine that instead of being a white Australian, Assange was from Syria, Venezuela, or China. Do you think people's opinions of wikileaks would be different?
I think what most people calling him an asshole haven't realized is that Assange's work has brought attention to issues which the world wouldn't care about. He's revealed the killings carried out by the U.S. funded governments. Most people on the left didn't complain when he released information on the cult of scientology and the names of members in the NBP. Most right wing people on this forum didn't really complain when he released those e-mails between the climatologists or the nuclear accident in Iran. Are we all supposed to complain because he's released something some people may disagree with? This man should be held up as a patriot in the fight against global censorship.
I totally agree with you.
I think that the use of classification, like many of the authorities that the many-headed hydra that is our government wields like a cudgel, is in need of reform.
Failing that, in the mean time, if Wikileaks broke the law it broke the law, and any participant on American soil or in lawful American custody should be tried and punished accordingly.
That said, I'm rooting for him.
Government classified documents are classified for a reason. Whether any particular document should be classified can be debated, but just mass releasing them is not an acceptable way to handle that disagreement. I disapproved of the war in Iraq. Alot of the documents coming out show I was right in my disapproval. However, they should not have been released like this. There is a system in place to unclassified documents, and that system should be used. If you don't like the system, work to change it. Random people taking it on themselves to decide what should and should not be classified is not acceptable.
But . . . isn't that essentially the way stuff gets classified? Some person we've never known nor will ever know (essentially a random person) taking it upon themselves to decide what should and should not be classified?
Someone I've never known nor will ever know is, in my view, a random person.
I don't really care how who certifies or promotes or evaluates them -- they are a perfect stranger.
As for the process, there's so much stuff that ends up under wraps just to save face that the process is meaningless.
I believe I addressed this a post or two ago.
Why is it that when someone disagrees with you, a reference to socialism or communism is the best comeback you've got?
Why, thank you! That's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day.
I think what most people calling him an asshole haven't realized is that Assange's work has brought attention to issues which the world wouldn't care about. He's revealed the killings carried out by the U.S. funded governments. Most people on the left didn't complain when he released information on the cult of scientology and the names of members in the NBP. Most right wing people on this forum didn't really complain when he released those e-mails between the climatologists or the nuclear accident in Iran. Are we all supposed to complain because he's released something some people may disagree with? This man should be held up as a patriot in the fight against global censorship.
So it's a random person, if you change the meaning of "random" to something completely different?
Someone I've never known nor will ever know is, in my view, a random person.
I don't really care how who certifies or promotes or evaluates them -- they are a perfect stranger.
As for the process, there's so much stuff that ends up under wraps just to save face that the process is meaningless.
Actually, I was making reference to the two traitors, who gave the secrets to the atomic bomb, to the enemy.
None of that could possibly result in the deaths of American servicemen.
As TED pointed out, being a member of the military is--by it's very nature--dangerous. However, our service members deserve the highest level of safety and security that the government can provide.
Leaks to prove that the US is turning a blind eye to human rights violations and covering up innocent deaths: Yes.
Leaks that name locals who help coalition forces and reveal future coalition strategies: No.
Why is people spending more time criticizing Assange than the idiots who are covering up this bloodied mess?
The random person in the government who evaluates them is doing so according to the guidelines of the government and in the interests of the country. The random person outside the government is releasing whatever he wants. That's a huge difference, IMO.
No.
I'm saying that Julian Assange is just as random to me as the government agent classifying material.
Except there is a large difference. Assange's qualifications are that he owns a website, whereas the people who classify material have actual written job requirements and standards to adhere to.
Completely irrelevant, since I have no way of verifying that they fullfill those requirements or adhere to those standards. I know nothing about them.
So who decides which is which? Who ensures that they don't just end up releasing everything they come across?
Because the threat that accompanies someone leaking classified information with no limitations is infinitely greater than the threat that accompanies a country seeking to downplay bad actions like every other country in history.
None of that could possibly result in the deaths of American servicemen.
As TED pointed out, being a member of the military is--by it's very nature--dangerous. However, our service members deserve the highest level of safety and security that the government can provide.
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?