Why is Julian Assange un-American?

[SteelersinCA]

Yes, let's deflect to a couple lives endangered as opposed to the human right violations our government overlooks according to our own diplomatic cables. Then we'll pretend if that doesn't change one's mind they haven't thought about it. Typical.

The danger of not thinking is being caught up in the spin about assange being a villain. If someone actually reads the cables, they'll find out our government is doing a lot of shit we probably wouldn't approve of. I mean why would anyone want the citizens to know they lost 4 billion dollars. These aren't state secrets theyre a window into the day to day operations of our government and it's not the slightest bit pretty.

Are some lives in danger? Maybe but that pales in comparison to the truth exposed.

[ricardisimo]

Exactly, SiCA. Wikileaks' entire point is transparency in government. Absolute transparency. I think that's a good thing, and I would have to assume that anyone claiming to come from a libertarian stance would tend to agree. You don't get "smaller government" by insisting that they keep all of their transactions and decisions secret.

Far and away the most embarrassing element to this particular batch of papers is the primacy of corporate interests in the design and functioning of our foreign policy. You better believe that getting big, fat contracts for Boeing and GM trump the lives of those Afghanis.

Just because it's obvious doesn't make it any less disgusting. Hopefully something good will come of this. Third-graders can tell you this: you're less likely to do stupid shit if you know people are watching you.

[zulater]

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

Yes, let's deflect to a couple lives endangered as opposed to the human right violations our government overlooks according to our own diplomatic cables. Then we'll pretend if that doesn't change one's mind they haven't thought about it. Typical.

The danger of not thinking is being caught up in the spin about assange being a villain. If someone actually reads the cables, they'll find out our government is doing a lot of shit we probably wouldn't approve of. I mean why would anyone want the citizens to know they lost 4 billion dollars. These aren't state secrets theyre a window into the day to day operations of our government and it's not the slightest bit pretty.

Are some lives in danger? Maybe but that pales in comparison to the truth exposed.

Name me one Government ever that hasn't had some degree of corruption assocciated with it? It's just the way it is, and always has been. Not saying you don't clean up what you can when you can, but if you're looking for complete transparency in government you're barking mad. It never has happened, never will.

And there was absolutley no reason to include the Afghan nationals names, Assange isn't a hero, he's just a self absorbed, self serving puke who's basking in his 15 minutes of fame. I hope he soon wakes up just as dead as many of those Afghan nationals he put in harms way.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by zulater

Name me one Government ever that hasn't had some degree of corruption assocciated with it? It's just the way it is, and always has been. Not saying you don't clean up what you can when you can, but if you're looking for complete transparency in government you're barking mad. It never has happened, never will.

And there was absolutley no reason to include the Afghan nationals names, Assange isn't a hero, he's just a self absorbed, self serving puke who's basking in his 15 minutes of fame. I hope he soon wakes up just as dead as many of those Afghan nationals he put in harms way.

While it doesn't surprise me you wish someone dead, please explain to me how this is a zero sum game. You see, when people have devastatingly lost argument they usually resort to a few things, ad hominem attacks, trying to make things a zero sum game or something to do with Nazis. (see Godwin's law) Not one single person argued for complete transparency, in fact, you are the first to suggest it.

The discussion is about how much corruption you are willing to put up with and how much you are willing to sacrifice to get there.

Again, people like you want to attack Assange like he's the only one doing this, like he's the one who put those names in there. He along with the 5 media outlets had tons of correspondence with the State Dept. re: what info to redact.

Where is your outrage with those 5 media outlets for not censoring it??

Where is your outrage with the State Dept?

Where is your outrage that the Afghani Govt is corrupt and playing both the Taliban AND us???

Assange is an easy feel good target. See the other problem with people is they don't like to admit when they are wrong and they want to run as far away as possible from the real problem.

Edit: I see Rico talked about absolute transparency, I did not read that before I replied to your quote of me.

[zulater]

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

While it doesn't surprise me you wish someone dead, please explain to me how this is a zero sum game. You see, when people have devastatingly lost argument they usually resort to a few things, ad hominem attacks, trying to make things a zero sum game or something to do with Nazis. (see Godwin's law) Not one single person argued for complete transparency, in fact, you are the first to suggest it.

The discussion is about how much corruption you are willing to put up with and how much you are willing to sacrifice to get there.

Again, people like you want to attack Assange like he's the only one doing this, like he's the one who put those names in there. He along with the 5 media outlets had tons of correspondence with the State Dept. re: what info to redact.

Where is your outrage with those 5 media outlets for not censoring it??

Where is your outrage with the State Dept?

Where is your outrage that the Afghani Govt is corrupt and playing both the Taliban AND us???

Assange is an easy feel good target. See the other problem with people is they don't like to admit when they are wrong and they want to run as far away as possible from the real problem.

Edit: I see Rico talked about absolute transparency, I did not read that before I replied to your quote of me.

Thje reason I hope he gets himslef dead? Because his blatant disregard for the lives of people who may have believed they were doing the right thing by helping coilition forces. So basically I hope he meets the same fate they do, how's that unfair.

As for the rest, i don't give a shit.

[SteelersinCA]

So then you hope the people at the NYT, the Guardian, etc meet the same fate as well or just Assange?

Also, of import is the fact that your link is dated Aug 10&12, who says the names weren't redacted? Nice job on exposing yourself as bloodthirtsy for Assange's head without confirming the names were actually released. Class act all the way around, Bravo!!!!

[SteelersinCA]

Just a little research would reveal that the Pentagon not only refused to work with Assange to redact names, they also lied about it.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...8/20/wikileaks

So that means those people at the Pentagon must meet the same fate as well?!

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declas....html?from=rss

Newsweek's Mark Hosenball follows up on the issues raised here in a new article today, with more evidence proving that WikiLeaks has been attempting to secure the Pentagon's cooperation in redacting names -- exactly as Assange has been explaining -- while the Pentagon has been issuing multiple false denials of these facts. Shouldn't anyone who criticized WikiLeaks for its lack of redactions also be criticizing the DoD for refusing WikiLeaks' requests for redaction assistance (and then falsely denying it happened)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112905743.html

The disclosure of a huge cache of diplomatic cables has alarmed human rights groups, which fear that WikiLeaks or news outlets could publish the names of local activists who have spoken with U.S. diplomats in countries with repressive governments.

While there are so far no known cases in which activists have been publicly identified in the cables, two leading groups, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First, have written to the founder of WikiLeaks to urge him to scrub any references from the documents that might allow other countries to identify the activists.

The State Department has identified what one senior official described as a significant number of activists and journalists whom it believes will be endangered if named. The official said a number of "very sensitive sources" could be arrested or targeted with violence if their names are published.

"These are red-flag lists," the official said.

U.S officials declined to provide specifics on people who were at risk or to characterize those individuals' contacts with American officials. The State Department also refused a WikiLeaks request, made over the weekend, to provide information on the names of individuals whose lives may be "at significant risk of harm."

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said that he urged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in writing over the holiday weekend to "redact from the documents the names of any U.S.-supported human rights defenders who might be placed in jeopardy."

At the same time, however, he voiced concern that the State Department was trying to use the "fear of disclosure about human rights defenders as an excuse to pursue WikiLeaks or restrict access to this kind of information."

Roth said that he had discussed "the theoretical possibility" that rights groups could be targeted by repressive governments in a conversation with Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. He said Robinson "assured me that they were aware of this problem and would deal with it. We have no evidence yet that any human rights defender has been disclosed and can't say for sure it won't happen."

Elisa Massimino, the president and chief executive of Human Rights First, expressed even greater alarm in a Saturday letter to Assange, saying the disclosure of activists' names "is extremely reckless," as it would "increase their risk of persecution, imprisonment and violence."

U.S.-based rights groups say activists in the field have expressed growing anxiety about the prospects that their contacts with U.S. officials may surface as WikiLeaks rolls out tens of thousands of additional diplomatic cables.

"People are scared. We're getting lots of e-mails from people who might be mentioned even tangentially in these documents," said a U.S.-based human rights advocate who declined to be identified. "Our biggest concern is for foreign nationals who do research for us. Do you think someone who found out damaging details about a foreign government's human rights abuses is going to be invited over for tea? Not a chance. They are going to get their head busted in."

The senior U.S. official said the United States has taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to protect those most at risk, and those efforts continue. The official declined to identify the countries where those believed to be at risk reside, except to say they are in "places with terrible governments."

The official said there was a great deal of debate within the government about whether redactions should be negotiated with WikiLeaks. "It's a very sensitive issue," the official said. "The problem is if you point out the most sensitive things to them, then you are implicitly saying that other things which are comparably sensitive are not being pointed out. And they can legitimize a large group of disclosures."

WikiLeaks has said it will do its own redactions, but the official said, "We don't trust their judgment."

The official said the group had already released the material to various media outlets before it offered to discuss redactions.

lynchc@washpost.com finnp@washpost.com

This is too easy.

[zulater]

:

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

So then you hope the people at the NYT, the Guardian, etc meet the same fate as well or just Assange?

Also, of import is the fact that your link is dated Aug 10&12, who says the names weren't redacted? Nice job on exposing yourself as bloodthirtsy for Assange's head without confirming the names were actually released. Class act all the way around, Bravo!!!!

I think he's a self gratifying douche bag with no general sense of higher purpose other than to "stick it to the man".( sound familiar?) and get his 15 minutes of fame, maybe impress some easily dazzled liberal groupies in the proccess ( oh yeah he's already done that ) http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...ost-wanted-man

Do I want him dead in the literal sense? Not really, whatever fate awaits him I have a total disregard for. Live, die, , rot in prison? Who cares, he made his own bed, let him lie in it, better yet, let him lie in it with big Bubba.


Long story short, go ahead champion the son of a bitch if you like, but he's not my hero.

[SteelersinCA]

I'll take that as you admitting you were incorrect with your first comment in this thread saying something he did which "bothered" you. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the comment about not giving things much thought, because it's apparent you don't or, more appropriately, can't.

Although I am still curious, if you fault the litany of others who are doing the exact same thing. This may operate on a plane of thought higher than you are accustomed to, but no one is championing him so much as they are pointing out even when the government is exposed as hypocrites, they continue to be such.

BTW, I thought I was on ignore, what did I do to redeem myself to be removed from that place of esteem?

[zulater]

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

I'll take that as you admitting you were incorrect with your first comment in this thread saying something he did which "bothered" you. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the comment about not giving things much thought, because it's apparent you don't or, more appropriately, can't.

Although I am still curious, if you fault the litany of others who are doing the exact same thing. This may operate on a plane of thought higher than you are accustomed to, but no one is championing him so much as they are pointing out even when the government is exposed as hypocrites, they continue to be such.

BTW, I thought I was on ignore, what did I do to redeem myself to be removed from that place of esteem?

Honestly I'm not that interested in the subject matter, to some extent I think it's funny, and somewhat ridiculous. But I also think it's equally ridiculous that you guys are trumping up this asshole as if he's some kind of hero. He's not. Ask his "dates" if you don't want to take my word for it.

And I never had you on ignore, I just usually choose to ignore you.