- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Assange. But he is clearly too reckless and too indecent to do such a thing. Thus i cannot say i support his whistle blowing completely, however my point was that it is ludicrous that anger is being concentrated on him only. The US government deserves its share for its hypocrisy.
That still doesn't answer the question, this is not merely a matter of downplaying actions (because these are serious allegations). We have found evidence of the US allowing human rights abuses to go unnoticed
and we have caught the US government lying about the number of civilian deaths.
The US government has a legitimate concern in regards to Assange, however, they are using this opportunity to divert the attention for there own crimes and people are buying into it. Where is the finger pointing at the US government?
Unless the US government apologizes and takes the necessary actions to ensure the public such a thing will not happen again, they really have no ground to say Assange threatens troops when it is clear the government has no respect for human life as it is.
What do you think of the WikiLeaks founder?
My anger is directed at anyone who aids in the release of this information. My confusion is directed at those who argue in favor of letting it happen because of some absurd argument against "censorship."
I'm sorry, but what exactly do you think we should have done? Do you think the situation in Iraq would have been improved had we trumpeted from the rooftops every single time there was an allegation of prisoner mistreatment by Iraqi authorities?
Can you show me how they lied?
It's a bit subdued, because as I mentioned, the danger from what Assange and his ilk are doing is far greater than the danger of what the US is doing.
I know it's hard to admit, but the downplaying allegations of abuse doesn't really mean **** in the grand spectrum of things.
I'm just not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. The US made a strategic, diplomatic, and military decision to announce some things and not announce others. Because you disagree with where they drew the line, you think they have no right to say that people shouldn't be leaking and publicizing classified military documents. That doesn't make any sense to me.
It is censorship. Assange has the right under law to release these documents but a moral obligation not to. That it is the nature of our freedoms, and it applies across the board - like it or not. You enjoy these freedoms and so should others.
In the end we can only rely on the decency of the person in question not to release detrimental material.
Perhaps in the future we should be more careful with sensitive documents.
Absolutely. I expect the US army to at least bother investigating the claims, and (dare i suggest this) not lie to the public about civilian deaths. Such a thing is blasphemous. It violates every value we have here in the West. It violates every expectation we set in the UN for other countries to follow.
In fact, they haven't even bothered apologizing, or telling us what they intend to do in order to fix there wrongs. Where is the action? Where are the statements from the government? What do we intend to do to ensure human rights are not systematically abused in the future?
Why should Assange care about lives if the US government does not?
Is it not obvious. Deflation of numbers equates to lying in my books.
Downplaying? Downplaying what, exactly? The systematic abuse of human rights is not something that can be "downplayed". This is not Mugabe's Zimbabwe. What we have seen is evidence from leaked government sources themselves. There not allegations, there proven fact, unless to say classified material is all lies when it contains ugly truths.
If you believe "Assange" poses a greater threat than a government that hides civilian deaths and allows human rights abuses, than i advise you re-evaluate your position.
I wonder if the US government's real concern is the danger these leaks pose to military lives, or the danger it poses to the reputation of the government.
Faux News analyst claims Assange is not after the truth:
Another WikiLeaks Bombshell - Fox News Video - FoxNews.com
At 1:55... "(Assange) said himself that this is not about finding the truth; it's a political objective, pure and simple."
Apparently he didn't watch the interview with Assange that directly followed the release of these documents, where Arrange talks for a length of time about finding the truth:
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
:doh
Mr. Assange’s detractors also accuse him of pursuing a vendetta against the United States. In London, Mr. Assange said America was an increasingly militarized society and a threat to democracy. Moreover, he said, “we have been attacked by the United States, so we are forced into a position where we must defend ourselves.”
"This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying," Assange told the German newspaper Der Spiegel before publishing the Afghanistan war logs. "That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards."
"They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars," Assange told the German newspaper Der Spiegel before publishing the classified reports. "This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence."
If Assange's group aided or conspired with the leakers in the course of acquiring the documents they published, then that is a crime and punishable as such.
Additionally, while these particular documents probably satisfy the test for what can legally be published, that in no way means that the publication of everything would be legal. Should Assange try to leak (or papers try to publish) documents that are more analogous to troop movements, the government could seek an injunction preventing their publication.
And that's a terrible system.
Agreed. We should also punish the **** out of those who leak them and aggressively investigate possible crimes by those who would seek to facilitate the leaking.
I just don't know where on earth you're getting this. When you come across a country that would voluntarily publish every single allegation against their troops or the troops of their allies (during a war or otherwise), let me know.
Tell me exactly what the US did wrong and what you think they should have done differently.
It's this type of logic that reminds me why groups like wikileaks are incredibly dangerous. It's easy to see how a group like that would convince itself that it was doing the right thing in publishing information that would lead to the deaths of US troops or other innocents, simply because they think it would punish the US for its misdeeds or otherwise force the US to withdraw.
Show me how they downplayed the numbers.
Did you actually look at the documents? Many of them are simply reports on what officers or soldiers heard second hand. Many more are just allegations of things that happened outside of US authority. That =/= fact.
I think it should be clear that the two are deeply intertwined.
There is no evidence that they in any way conspired or aided the leakers and it falls down to the whistle blowing laws of the country in question.
It depends on what the publication involves. If it is troop movements, agreed. However it is an error in judgment to suggest anything else be withheld from the public. You only serve to allow the government to repeat this behavior in the future. Socrates once said, "your silence gives consent". If human rights abuses are taking place, the UN needs to be informed and the US government needs to take the necessary actions and learn from its mistake.
However what is happening here is pretty clear. The governments initial response was to stop the publication of all material. Now its scare mongering and using Assange as the scape goat.
It is a system that can be flexible. The US government has every right to stop the publication of the material, and only the particular material that could reveal the identities of locals and the entire NATO strategy out there (through court action). And above all, it should seek to make amends, or it will loose the peoples sympathy completely.
That is not the issue here, the issue here is the fact that the US has allowed Iraqi troops to violate the rights of others, including burning victims with acid. Excuse me if that's a "minor" allegation not worth catching up on.
I've made this clear already.
All of that is clear on the wikileaks website.
The documents in question have not yet been released but these are said to be the contents of the documents leaked. Im sure you too have heard that deaths at civilian checkpoints are actually higher than what they have been reported to be.
Arguably, one more than the other.
Mr. Assange said America was an increasingly militarized society and a threat to democracy.
What do you think of the WikiLeaks founder?
The freedom of the press is meant to keep a check on the govenment.
What do you think of the WikiLeaks founder?
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?