• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Julian Assange

What do you think of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

  • War Criminal against US

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • Humanitarian

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Unsure but irrelevant I believe WikiLeaks motivation is justice

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • He is a spy trying to put Americans in harms way

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • I have no opinion

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • Total voters
    28

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,938
Reaction score
8,394
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What do you think of the WikiLeaks founder?
 
I think he's a very arrogant man that cares more about WikiLeaks than he does about our troops and innocent lives. I strongly disprove of his actions.
 
Don't know enough about it yet to make an informed comment one way or the other.
 


I am *not* defending him or WikiLeaks, I'm interested in the truth. But this is the media that we trust to give us news about him.
 
Even if I know nothing of this character, I still have an opinion.To do what he did is "bad" upon "bad".
Our government should have paid attention to Thomas Jefferson ( NO FOREIGN WARS).If he is hung for treason, then so should those who were responsible for our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anyway, that is one way of looking at things....

It cannot be said that one of these so-called nations was harboring the heinious criminal osama-bin-laden..Simply because, primarily Afghanistan , as a true nation, England or Japan(for examples), does not exist.
 
I don't know anything about the guy, so I didn't vote.

I have no problem with what he's done. If the government made this information accessible, then why is it wrong to "leak" it?

If our government wanted to shut down his website, I have no doubt we could do it in a heartbeat. I'm sure the technology is there. Yeah, he could republish, but if no one can find it, it's immaterial.

Sooo, I ask, "Why isn't the government stopping it? And, more important, why is this information out there in the first place?
 
He is no different than someone who knowingly buys stolen property. So he is just as guilty as the traitors who release classified info to him. Since he is not an American he obviously can't be a traitor to our country but if he is ever caught he should be tried with something.
 
Personally, I think that any individual who can get such a strong reaction from the Federal government without resorting to violence gets a thumbs-up from me. My instinct to get behind any expression of outrage by the feebs is long dead, and they've long since lost any claim to any kind of moral authority as far as I'm concerned.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that what this guy did is illegal, except that there are enough vaguely-written Federal laws that lots of innocuous / morally sound practices can classified as illegal.

You can run around in circles and howl about the troops, and then you can bite me. If you strap on your country's uniform, pick up a gun, and step onto a transport, guess what -- it's gonna be dangerous, you might die, and that's just part of your job. I don't want our troops dead, I'd prefer they all came home safe and mentally sound, but I can hardly take it personally when someone else beats them to the punch.

If you can't accept that, don't sign up, not even in peacetime.

Treason? Treason against what, an abstract concept embodied by a metric ****ton of selfish pricks that don't give a **** about you personally, who work constantly to increase their authority over your life and erode your rights, who take your money and use it to buy votes, campaign dollars, and favors from powerful people?

Really? I'm supposed to get upset because someone made THAT bunch of assholes angry? Or because being a soldier continues to be a risky, thankless job?

When the feebs are less interested in collecting scalps or taking bribes and more interested in actually being public servants, I'll reconsider my position.
 
Last edited:
I see him as a function of the press and therefore benign in of itself. He might be slightly better in that he isn't a corporate shill who will get phone calls from the government asking him to pull a story.
 
Possibly there should have been more options in that Polling question.

BTW - the little creep on active duty who supplied most of this stuff to him is due for Court Martial in the near future.
 
None of those options fit my opinion. He is not a spy or war criminal, but what he is doing with Wikileaks go far beyond what I find acceptable. I think I would describe him as an asshole and waste of valuable oxygen who I wish we could go after legally, but don't think we can.
 
He's an egotistical media hound who is doing everything he can to undermine the US.
 
Assange himself is a arrogant twat. On the other hand, wikileaks performs a vital service. Even though I don't agree with some of the documents they have released, they are willing to expose the nasty secrets powerful entities keep hidden. Governments and Corporations have way too much control over information nowadays, and it is important to have a counter-balance. I wish wikileaks was run by someone who was more responsible and less of a jackass, but sometimes you have to take what you can get.
 
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.
 
Forget it, Hatuey. He violated the

funny-cat-measuring-tape.jpg


invisible line on the ground.

He betrayed the abstract concept.

He somehow increased the risk of death to people who . . . are in the middle of a war zone and could die at any time with or without his help.

He may as well be the devil.
 
I have no opinion on the man himself. Nor do I care one little bit about his personality.

As for Wikileaks, I think they just want the whole truth to be available to all. Obviously those who end up looking bad as a result are not gonna like it when the whole picture is exposed. We're conditioned to believe that we don't have the right to know the whole truth when it might endanger our soldiers. I think that's hogwash and goes against everything our soldiers are supposed to be fighting for. It's not Wikileaks' responsibility to protect the lives of soldiers and I think it's important that there is at least ONE organisation that can't be silenced be the usual suspects.
 
I think you're falling into a trap if you make this a question of Assange's character rather than about what wikileaks itself is doing. And that's precisely, as he says, his function in Wikileaks, to be the lightning rod to take heat of the actual website.

The real question should be, do you approve of what wikileaks is doing or not. I couldn't care less about Assange, but leaking classified military information is simply unacceptable.
 
I really think you have to be careful about sweeping all "classified" information into the same bucket. The government classifies all sorts of stuff that isn't particularly mission-critical but could prove to be embarrassing.

If Wikileaks was reporting troop movements, or counts, or plans for upcoming attacks, target lists and the like, I'd be angry and want it shut the hell down.

If Wikileaks is publishing stuff that embarrasses the military and could piss people off who would otherwise be helpful, too ****ing bad. The truth will out, and if you don't want the truth to embarrass you at the wrong moment then don't do something embarrassing.
 
Assange mishandled that interview but Wikileaks represents an earnest effort to get the truth out. The recent revelations are that the U.S. military knowingly misled us as to the level of civilian Iraqi casualties and overall level of violence at critical stages of the insurrection there.
 
Personally, I think that any individual who can get such a strong reaction from the Federal government without resorting to violence gets a thumbs-up from me. My instinct to get behind any expression of outrage by the feebs is long dead, and they've long since lost any claim to any kind of moral authority as far as I'm concerned.

The Rosenbergs got a strong reaction from the Federal Government, too. Do you give them a thumbsup, as well?

You can argue until you're blue in the face that what this guy did is illegal, except that there are enough vaguely-written Federal laws that lots of innocuous / morally sound practices can classified as illegal.

You can run around in circles and howl about the troops, and then you can bite me. If you strap on your country's uniform, pick up a gun, and step onto a transport, guess what -- it's gonna be dangerous, you might die, and that's just part of your job. I don't want our troops dead, I'd prefer they all came home safe and mentally sound, but I can hardly take it personally when someone else beats them to the punch.

If you can't accept that, don't sign up, not even in peacetime.

Treason? Treason against what, an abstract concept embodied by a metric ****ton of selfish pricks that don't give a **** about you personally, who work constantly to increase their authority over your life and erode your rights, who take your money and use it to buy votes, campaign dollars, and favors from powerful people?

Really? I'm supposed to get upset because someone made THAT bunch of assholes angry? Or because being a soldier continues to be a risky, thankless job?

When the feebs are less interested in collecting scalps or taking bribes and more interested in actually being public servants, I'll reconsider my position.

Well spoken, for someone who never put on the uniform.
 
Assange mishandled that interview but Wikileaks represents an earnest effort to get the truth out. The recent revelations are that the U.S. military knowingly misled us as to the level of civilian Iraqi casualties and overall level of violence at critical stages of the insurrection there.

Assange has no other motive, than to undermine the United States. He's admitted that.

It's sickneing that anyone would defend this bastard.
 
I really think you have to be careful about sweeping all "classified" information into the same bucket. The government classifies all sorts of stuff that isn't particularly mission-critical but could prove to be embarrassing.

If Wikileaks was reporting troop movements, or counts, or plans for upcoming attacks, target lists and the like, I'd be angry and want it shut the hell down.

If Wikileaks is publishing stuff that embarrasses the military and could piss people off who would otherwise be helpful, too ****ing bad. The truth will out, and if you don't want the truth to embarrass you at the wrong moment then don't do something embarrassing.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom