Damn mcbry... What's your problem with me exactly? Did I do anything to you?

Yeah I've read assanges writing and despite his typos and abuse of complex verbiage, you are right he is a better writer than me... But what does that have to do with anything?

You think I'm jealous that he "fucks swedish girls without a condom"? No, I'm not jealous of that. I've a girlfriend and I prefer her to anonymous swedish cia operatives...

Anyway do you mind rereading what I wrote without assuming I'm jealous of the guy? I know what I want to do my life and its not that. Not endangering other people's lives and livelihoods for some principles he purports to believe in.

My hero/man I'm jealous is Romeo Dallaire. Look him up. Thanks for asking, punk-ass.

"I've a girlfriend and I prefer her to anonymous swedish cia operatives..."

- wait were they agents of anonymous or of the cia? i'm confused, but i think this narative is getting more interesting by the minute...

at this hour alas my mind is also in the gutter, and i am forced to mention that i prefer your girlfriend too :p

That's punk-ass bitch to you, sir. Don't get me wrong, Thucy, I generally like you. But you're long on character assassination and short on reasons on this topic.

Then drop everything i said about his character and look at what i said about the nature of this leaks.

i wish he would expose things that the government is doing that are wrong, not just expose things for the sake of exposing things.

that's why the diplomatic cables (most of them) ought not have been leaked. that's what i'm saying.

it's also why he shouldn't publish shit like the most strategically vulnerable places in the us. that wasn't even a secret, he only drew attn to it.

and in the war leaks, he should have left out the bits that would damage the war effort/endanger anyone.

i guess if he disagrees with the war, fine, but still, only publish shit that's wrong that happened, like that video of the helos killing the reuters people.

not the name of an informant or something.

and lastly im all for transparency, i a big believer in it. but his tactics, his methods, will serve only to reduce overall transparency.


there. those are the beefs i have with wikileaks/assange, even without his character being questionable to me.

is that not enough? i think it is, it just further unnerves me that he strikes me as one who is not actually in this for the good of all, but more for his own shits and giggles. of course theres no evidence of that, but the OP basically asked our opinion about the man himself and i gave it.

"i wish he would expose things that the government is doing that are wrong"

Thucy, are you reading the cables at all, or the media coverage around them? Some of it speaks to genuine evils being committed by your government (and the large multinational corporations it works for).

OK. The target of wikileaks is not particular secrets but the secretive state itself. Do you have any doubts about the secretiveness of the US Government, or how far they have been able to dig into your private e-mails, phone conversations, etc. since 9/11? The Washington Post, not exactly left wing extremists, called the secret Intelligence sector America's fourth branch of government, and it operates with impunity consuming a vast quantity of your tax-dollars so that in large part it can spy on you.
Furthermore, all those diplomatic cables you're complaining about were vetted for release by five of the most respected newspapers in the western world. And if you're paying attention to the diplomatic cables themselves, there are acts described in those cables that without any question would be an absolute outrage and probably cause for war to the American public of some foreign government tried to perpetrate them on the US.
As for your opinions about the personal character of the man himself, I'm not sure what you're basing them on, but his writings make clear that this is not a game of shits and giggles for him but a deadly serious matter. He may be enjoying the media attention, let him. Someone has to be the poster child. He might not even be a good person in a normal sense of the phrase as someone you would like or trust or be friends with, I don't know him and I don't care. And he isn't stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and it requires serious conviction.

Assange: Villain

Assange's supporters: website-hacking nut jobs

*rolls eyes*

No offense to everyone who clearly has strong opinions here, but I think the focus of the argument should not be on Assange himself at all.

It is a simple fact that at some point in time, someone, somewhere, WILL (not maybe) leak information of this magnitude. It just happened to be this man at this time. If not Assange, someone would have decided to pull a similar stunt in the interests of freedom of speech/protection of rights/etc. etc. etc.

The question that I think this topic should have asked from the beginning is: Is the person who decides to be the vanguard of this controversy a hero or villain? This removes all the personal attacks and character flaws of the man/woman in question, and focuses on the idea of disclosing or hiding information deemed as secret.

To dive into this issue, I would say that the person in this position is in fact a hero because he had the guts to stand up for what he believed in, and against such an imposing and giant foe. This does not mean that his actions or field of interest (leaking sensitive information) is included in my labeling him as a hero - this avoids a value judgment of the actions themselves, for a hero can be a hero even if he does evil; he is simply a champion to those who share his beliefs.

So, now that I am done with talking about the person who becomes the focus of the conversation, I can address the actual concern that I have on this topic: the use/abuse of the term "secret" and it's functionality as a label. If you have seen any of the leaks, or even read many of the reports on the subject you will find a lot of information that truthfully doesn't matter much at all. However, these tidbits are classified as secret, and are therefore just as important (according to their label) as other things that were leaked, things that actually do have a large impact on current politics/relations. My issue is that I feel the government is too easily using the label "secret" as an out; a way to avoid making something public, simply due to a fear of whatever backlash that new information will create. Instead of dealing with the problem, they declare it a secret and avoid having to be transparent or anywhere near the chopping block or public opinion.

So, ultimately, I think the actions taken to expose these secrets was a good action - not because it broke legal stature, and not because it has the potential to hurt out national security or position in the world (because again, this was going to happen at some point and the fallout will be the same, just different dates and facts). The reason I support it is because it is a show of the abuse of "power" that our government utilizes simply to make their jobs/lives easier. We all do this in every profession - who doesn't want to be able to do their job efficiently and well and deal with the important stuff? But in such a public domain, and one that shapes so many lives/ideas/beliefs, I find that cutting corners for ease of use is unacceptable. Furthermore it is the path towards corruption in all potential forms.

So if you choose to argue over Assange's actions, whether it be to leak information or to enjoy sex without a rubber, please go forward with gusto! But know that you are only arguing over the character of a particular man, not the issues of secrecy, information, or transparency.

I apologize for the length, but I felt it necessary to make my point clear.

Hear, hear! =)

kislikd +10

@kislikd - But the motiviations of the person are key to the villification or hero-worship afforded him or her. And the is some doubt to the true motives of the particular person in question. The actions themselves are neither heroic or evil, but the motiviation of the person(s) commiting them make them so.

no, the motivations of the media which villifies him are more interesting than his motivations.

I in fact think hero-worship of him is unliekly - even if i support his actions i don't hitnk he is any hero.

@Draugnar - I agree that the motivations/intentions of the actor (the one taking action) is important, however, I disagree that it is that which is key to the issue. If we follow your reasoning, then anyone who does anything at all, can only be judged by his intentions rather than what he does. This is "the ends justifying the means" to a T - which I disagree with inherently.

In addition, if we were to simply look at intentionality and the motivation of the actor, then by logical follow-through, it only takes a value judgement of one person to the positive to consider someone a hero - only one person has to think that what was done is right because of the intentions of the doer (including the doer himself!). So if intentionality is the key, then ALL people are heroes when they do ANY action, from crossing the street to taking someone else's life as long as they themselves feel that they were doing the right thing! This is in my mind, absurd. There is no way that I could justify to you that killing your mother (I'm sorry to make it personal, but it's a good hypothetical - I hope she is in good health and lives a long and happy life) was a good thing. Necessary, maybe, under very extreme circumstances. But to simply consider it good act would be beyond your comprehension.

Furthermore, if "there is some doubt to the true motives of the particular person in question" as you stated, then there is no possible way for us to make a judgment of value of this person according to your logic of of the intentionality being key.

Again, the intention of an action is definitely important, and a part of the value judgment that we apply, but it is not, and should not be (in my opinion) the core of the issue.

As to your comment about actions not having a heroic or evil standpoint, I agree for the most part. There are conceivable times in which killing can be a heroic act - and in many ways that has to do with intentionality. However, the point of my post was not to discuss the intentions or character of the person performing the act. My point was to remove the human element from the picture entirely, and show that this action (done for whatever reason, and by whomever did it) was a good action in itself because of the reaction that it has the potential to cause in government. I won't reiterate, but this is what I was saying in the last two large paragraphs of my post (if you care to re-read; it's up to you).

Hope that answers your question satisfactorily - if not, you know where to find me :)

By the way, @orathaic: the media (and therefore, public opinion which follows {like the blind sheep it is - excuse my editorializing}) is definitely the interesting feature here because it is that social organism that will make the value judgment on his actions. He could have saved a baby pig from drowning in mud, but if everyone else focuses on why he decided to get his clothes dirty we apply the value that makes the action itself either good or bad - see history of Abraham Lincoln folklore.

I agree with you that hero-worship is simply ridiculous. No one should be placed on that kind of pedestal (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely), but I think we mean Hero in this thread to mean more of a qualitative title of good, rather than someone we should aspire to be and place our trust in.

Well, i'm sure there are those inspired by his actions to set up or contribute to anonymous leaking in the name of democracy and transparency (i'm sure because i've met them in person) which is again i think why the personal life of mister Assange is unimportant to the topic at hand.

Is the media looking for a story? are the not interested in the leaks themselves because they don't want to take advantage of this information (as if reporting on it would encourage would-be terrorists to 'threaten naional security')

I can only compare it to the experiments of certain nazi doctors during the second world war.

How do you justify ignoring their results if it may result in the deaths of hundreds of people?

How can any media outlet justify ignoring the possible good which can come from these leaks and simplfy things for the public?

I imagine the media will make one judgement now and historians will make another when the results of these leaks are known - hindsight being 20/20...

Yes, I think that there may be something to do with the gentleman's agreement that used to exist between the press and the government. This is not substantiated in any way, but it is possible that the press is "kindly" avoiding the actual information to prevent the leaks from spreading further or creating backlash. Or, it could be that the government is strong-arming them. Or, it could even be that they just think talking about the man and not the actual info will be better for their ratings. Who knows?

@kislikd - I agree in part. Mostly that some actions are inhernetly evil, no matter what the justification. I was speaking to these specific actions which I, personally (an admitted bias here so no need to point it out) do not find inherently evil. I was more referring to actions which are, generally speaking, considered neutral but can be heroic or evil depending on the actors intent.

I just don't believe this action falls into the absolute "good" category. There is an old saying that applies here. Loose lips sink ships. Leaks during war can have deadly results for both sides. Hitler didn't know where Operation Overlord was going to land. He knew it was going to happen eventually, but not when or where. therefore he was spread to thin to stop it completely. Despite the massive loss of life on Omaha Beach and elsewhere, it would have been much worse if someone had leaked those plans to him. That would have been an evil act had the "spy's" intent been to harm the war effort, do you not agree? So, too, could these leaks from wikileaks if the *intent* was not for the betterment of the world.

Moreover, I would say that, if the leaks resulted in additional loss of life either in a direct action or by extending the war effort due to having to scrap those plans and make new ones, that the conduct was evil, even if the intent was good (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes).

So, even taking the human element out, I do not believe you can judge these actions to be an outright good thing. History will judge the actions, but sometimes secrecy is required when you are fighting an internationally recognized evil (i.e. Al Quada).

@Draugnar - It is funny to me that many people will agree on the final point, but not on the road that gets them there. About actions that are "neutral" - I think we actually agree with one another, but took different stances to explain our similar beliefs. I was looking at things from the opposite standpoint such that (using your example) if the information about Omaha was leaked it would have been evil to us, but HEROIC to the Germans! It would have saved them countless lives and allowed them to remain in power for a while longer, perhaps more. Of course, we look at that as evil because of our perspective on the matter. This is my route to your conclusion - we must take into account that other people can view things differently so while we say something is good or bad, it does not mean that the thing itself actually IS, it is only that we view it that way. But I'm glad we came to terms on that.

As to the leaks being for the betterment (or worsening) of the world, I would say that you are absolutely right; there is a great possibility as to the negatives outweighing the positives. What I want to make sure of first is that we approach the issue from our viewpoint in the world, AS WELL AS various others. In this way we can truly see the total effect that this action has (a bit Utilitarian, but you get the gist). Because my next question would be: Is it more important that American lives are saved? Or lives of our enemies? Or lives in general? I don't ask this of you specifically, but of anyone who takes the stance that "a loss of life is a negative outcome of these leaks." I want to make sure that people know what lives they are actually talking about before making blanket statements.

i don't know what is so bad about an inernatioanl recognised evil.

Looking at Al Quada:
First it has broken international boundaries and attacked civilian targets.
Second it has claimed it is just and opposing opression.
Third it has no state backers - and this one is important.

Looking at the US
First it has broken international boundaries and attacked civilian targets (as well as militrary targets).
Second it has claimed it is just and opposing opression.
Third it has many state backers.

Now the difference between these two group which makes one a 'internationally recognised evil' is that calling the US evil has negative consequences, whereas saying that Al Quada is evil has very little effect (except perhaps from a few islamic republics... but they arre few and far between)

And while history will judge these actions, there is reason to believe that democracy has been compromised, and that as with all authoritarian organisations, when possible the US government has accumulated as much power as it realisticaly could.

Now whether they are doing 'good' or 'evil' with this power isn't the question. The question being raised is do they need this power?

Are you happy to live in a state where the government has demonstrated a willingness to violate human rights, to kidnap foreign nationals and to call for the assassination of anyone who opposes it (even with just words... and this leak is merely words, not even lies or incitment to violence, just the truth about what the US has done)

@kislikd - While you cleary say you aren't asking me directly, I will answer anyhow. Obviously, to me personally, reducing the loss of life of my countrymen and our allies is more important than the enemy, but I view total loss of life as being the most important aspect.

Let's look at two examples from WWII. Operation Overlord and the dropping of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Had Operation Overlord been leaked, not only would more allied lives been lost at Omaha, but the war would have continued far longer and more lives lost on both sides as well as more innocent lives lost in the concentration camps. Leaking that would have been an evil.

With regards to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, leaking that info would actually have potentially saved enemy lives in the short term, but quite possibly have cost more lives in the long run on both sides as the Pacific War would have reaged on much longer when our allies insisted we scrap the plans to reduce one, then a second city to rubble. the populace of England would never had stood for it after fearing for their own lives with all the blitzkrieg bombings of London and surrounding areas. So we wouldn't have dropped the bombs and the war would have continued: quite possibly for 5 more years or even longer. This is an example where something that, on the surface looks evil, may have been a good. Obviously, popular history has deemed it as acceptable to the alternative, but we will never know if peace might not have been acheived without even less loss of life.

So in short (too late, I know), I generally view any loss of life as a loss and reducing total loss of life is what I consider the good in these situations.

I would of course argue that loos of life itself is not sufficient, quality of life must also be considered.

If you are alive but forced to live in cages to produce some body hormone which is needed by the super-rich elite then i don't think this is better than being killed.

And so in this case i'm appealing not just to the lack of fairness in the international community at this time, but also to the erosion of freedoms of the US populance.

I don't claim that the US is more evil than Al Quada, i don't claim Al Quada is good or that i support them, I merely claim that i oppose the accumulation of power which can lead only to corruption, and i support effors to expose this corruption and prevent it spreading.

Whether US foreign policy is compromised and whether they need to attempt to build a new coalition of countries which includes many islamic nations which opposes Al Quada and many other 'evils' in the world (something to replace the security council, and it's permanent seated members, something relevant to todays international community and somehting which doesn't require unlateral actions by the US as the only responce to international terrorism...)

I think the 'we need to control X, Y and Z' tactics will ultimately fail as they have many other authoritarian regimes.

that was of course @ Draug

@Draugnar - If we were supposed to post short messages, I would have been banned by now :)

I agree with the point that you make, but I wish to tell you that the example of Nagasaki/Hiroshima is actually debatable. I had done an extensive paper on this subject when I was in college, and found lots of information that actually showed that Japan was ready to give up - well before we actually made the decision to drop the bomb. For months prior, they had been trying to get diplomats to approach the US with ideas of ending the war, but because of our difference in culture, the ideas were misunderstood, and therefore not acted upon. This stems from the Asian old-world beliefs (and maybe still current) of saving face - the Americans and co. could not understand that a simple conversation was actually a cry to end the war, so that failed.

Back to the bomb itself, Truman was given bad/incomplete evidence that the Japanese would not stop the war unless we followed through with the A-bomb. While it is possible that in order to save face the Japanese government would have continued, but we will never know that. The main reason that the bomb was dropped was because it was made. Simply: we got it, so let's make sure we damn well use it. This was the drive that ultimately led to the decision to green-light the mission.

So, while I still agree with your points, in the future, I would recommend not using that specific argument as an example.

Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure, but I have to log off for a while. I have greatly enjoyed the debate!

Also, I would recommend starting a new thread since we have gone quite off-topic and I don't want others who wish to take part to feel that they are out of the loop already. If a new thread popped up with these new issues, I would be happy to take part.

Take care for now!

@kislikd - when you get back on...

I actually agree regarding Japan. That is why I said "we will never know if peace might not have been acheived without even less loss of life." because I believe wholeheartedly that we (the US) were rash in using the ultimate deterrent and should have thought more about "should we" rather than "can we".

@orathaic - I agree. Quality of life is also important. To return to Hitler and WWII. Even if Hitler had stopped killing Jews and Poles and Russians, he would have continued to have his troops abuse them and do unspeakable things to them.

And I'm not advocating keeping all secrets. I'm advocating using judgement and not leaking them en mass. with great power/information comes great responsibility. Assange and wiileaks has not exercised the power wisely and have therefore failed in their great responsibility.

@Japan, the cold war would likely have gone a different route had the use of nuclear weapons in wartime not been demonstrated.

So while i find kislikd's analysis interesting (and it brings some points i wans't familiar with) i don't think it is only the immediate effect which needs to be considered. (as with the long term effects of this leak) we can't know what would have happened in the cold war if there had been no nuke, and we can't know what would have happened to american democracy without this leak...

However, i'd like to point out the Assange and wikileaks didn't just mass publish these leaks, they've been much slower (though the purpose has been to leak in amounts which the media CAN handle) i assume they are also looking at what they are leaking aswell....

They have been releasing limited leaks with only 5 major newspapers able to see the whole thing...

I would like to change the pace on this subject if no one minds and mention this: Something that has been mentioned to me in the real world, which no one here has said anything about, is that the leaks show that our foreign diplomats are actually, and seriously doing their job, and for the most part doing it well.

Reasons:
1. In order to understand a leader, you must know the personality of that leader, so information like "Turkey's PM is a grouch" is quite important in knowing how to deal with him, and that information should be used by our diplomats.
2. Since information like that was leaked, it follows that our diplomats are doing this and effectively.
3. Therefore - the State Department may have made mistakes in allowing this information to be accessed/downloaded, but they are doing a standup job in terms of actual world diplomacy.

If it were not for the wikileaks, we might not know for a fact that our government is doing a good job in regards to our foreign relations. Please keep in mind that this is totally separate from the issue of whether or not this is inconsequential next to the potential bad that this issue may cause. Just a fun/interesting point in a much larger topic.

Your thoughts?