Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I fail to see what makes Assange the arbiter of what becomes public, and potentially who gets to live and who gets to die.>> I keep seeing this on here, but does anyone actually have any proof that anyone has died because of what Assange has leaked? I'm really don't like defending this guy - he seems pretty scummy actually - but the hyperbole seems a bit out of control. <<To paraphrase Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men, the general public couldn't handle the truth about some things that happen.>> I actually disagree with this. Part of the problem we have in our Democracy these days is that we treat voters like children - and our politicians run campaigns on issues that should never even be making headlines. While there are definitely some things that should remain classified because of the potential loss of life, our governments tend to hold too much "close to the vest", and I think a little more transparency would really help educate the general public about what really goes on between countries. Maybe we wouldn't all get so bent out of shape over silly things like gay marriage if we actually had some more insight into some of the more important matters our government is engaged in.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I keep seeing this on here, but does anyone actually have any proof that anyone has died because of what Assange has leaked? I'm really don't like defending this guy - he seems pretty scummy actually - but the hyperbole seems a bit out of control.>> Agreed. <<Part of the problem we have in our Democracy these days is that we treat voters like children - and our politicians run campaigns on issues that should never even be making headlines. While there are definitely some things that should remain classified because of the potential loss of life, our governments tend to hold too much "close to the vest", and I think a little more transparency would really help educate the general public about what really goes on between countries.>> Knowledge is power, which is why those in power work so hard to keep most everything they do in the shadows. The Bush administration took secrecy to a whole new level in our government. So much was done behind closed doors; transparency basically didn't exist. And Obama's administration isn't much better. That's one of several things I do not like about how Obama is managing the WH. There needs to be more transparency. I wonder how many in the anti-Assange crowd would have acted similarly towards Daniel Ellsberg. What Dr. Ellsberg did was very brave and patriotic. But I'm certain the far right today would be screaming for his execution, just as they are for Assange. I don't care if Assange is a slime ball or not. I'm grateful for individuals like him and Dr Ellsberg so that governments are forced to remain honest and truthful with their citizens and how they represent us and act in our name with the rest of the world. That's the very foundation of democracy. Last time I checked, we were supposedly still operating as one.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Part of the problem we have in our Democracy these days is that we treat voters like children<< And the other part is that they're constantly going out of their way to justify that treatment.
Originally Posted By ecdc 62 and 63 sum up my thoughts (as does 64, for good measure). I don't think we can pander to stupid voters by saying you can't handle the truth. How big of a jerk or any other names you want to throw at Assange seems irrelevant. But that's what everyone is basing their reaction off of, not if he's done actual harm, not if someone has actually died, not if what he's doing is good, in the long run, for Democracies and the people, but the fact that he's a doo-doo head and we don't like him! Like plpeters, I feel weird defending him. At best, he's a very strange man, but sometimes the world needs those people. And I'm really not cemented to my defense, either. If there's actual evidence of the harm done, or a cogent argument of why this is bad for everyone, then I'm all ears. But with the exception of SPP's analogy to A Few Good Men, I haven't heard anything but anger at the kind of person he's perceived to be or swallowing government rhetoric about deaths and danger sans evidence.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<And the other part is that they're constantly going out of their way to justify that treatment.>> Part of that has to do with a lack of education for much of the electorate. Many of the issues that the government is dealing with today are very complicated, and don't have black and white answers. Many people in this country just don't have the educational background to understand all this stuff. But, that doesn't mean our elected officials should be treating us like children - they should instead be focusing on trying to educate the populace. Instead, they polarize everything, turning complex issues into black and white, your side against mine, one-liners. How else do you expect people to react except like scared children when treated this way for so many years?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>To paraphrase Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men<< You know he was the bad guy in that movie, right? Just sayin'...
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 Looks like Assange was NEVER charged with rape. He was charged for not using a condom with both women. Still scum of the earth?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Not using a condom gets morphed into a rape charge. plpeters is correct. The hyperbole is way overblown here.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, Assange has gotten people killed. LOTS of them. According to who? According to Assange. <<When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election". The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased.">> Source: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi...hanistan</a>
Originally Posted By velo So basically, he's an anarchist in the electronic age. Though I'm sure he sees himself more as a Robin Hood type.
Originally Posted By ecdc So Assange exposes widespread corruption, the people take notice and try and change it, the corrupt government crushes them, and Assange is to blame?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Further proof of what an egomaniac he is.>> So do you hate him because he has an ego problem, or because he claims to have gotten people killed? You seem more upset about the former than the later.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Yes, Assange has gotten people killed. LOTS of them. According to who? According to Assange. <<When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election". The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi*** Hang on a sec...this is a *very* weird example if you mean to support your own case here RT. Are you saying that massive corruption *shouldn't* be exposed, if it might lead to violence? I would think the people, no matter where, would have the right to know about stuff like that and if bad stuff happens as a result, that's just the way it goes for corrupt people and their followers (and victims).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,">> Says it all. I don't care how noble the intention may have been. If it results in that many deaths it SHOULD NOT be done. I frankly find it hard to believe that people would support something like that.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well, I'm happy to be proven wrong here, since I haven't looked at the details, but isn't it a safe assumption that if A) The government was corrupt, and B) They were willing to kill 1,300 people to retain people, then they probably weren't exactly the best people before the leak? Wouldn't it be a safe assumption he was killing people before Assange came along? No one wants to see 1,300 innocent people die, but the notion of shooting the messenger here is pretty odd. It's a bit like saying the media who covered Abu Grhaib is responsible for any deaths because of the Muslim world's outrage instead of saying that the soldiers and the military and the people responsible for Abu Grhaib were at fault. Or what about the Danish cartoons of Muhammed? Are we to believe that anytime people could die because of the exposure of information someone else doesn't like that information should be kept hidden?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip We are talking about citizens killing each other because of anger over the election results... an anger exacerbated by Assange's leaks. <<Initially, the violent reaction to the December 2007 election results – Mr. Kibaki was initially declared the winner before the election commissioner admitted that he didn’t know who won – started in the Rift Valley city of Eldoret, where supporters of opposition candidate Raila Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement claimed that the election had been “stolen.” The reaction was fierce and divided communities along ethnic lines, with mainly Kalenjin supporters of the opposition attacking mainly Kikuyu supporters of President Kibaki. In one fiery incident, hundreds of villagers outside of the Rift Valley city of Eldoret set fire to a small church packed with Kikuyu women and children, burning more than 30 of them alive.>> Source: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2010/0331/ICC-to-investigate-Kenya-election-violence.-Will-leaders-cooperate" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/World...ooperate</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >>><<I fail to see what makes Assange the arbiter of what becomes public, and potentially who gets to live and who gets to die.>> I keep seeing this on here, but does anyone actually have any proof that anyone has died because of what Assange has leaked? I'm really don't like defending this guy - he seems pretty scummy actually - but the hyperbole seems a bit out of control. <<To paraphrase Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men, the general public couldn't handle the truth about some things that happen.>> I actually disagree with this. Part of the problem we have in our Democracy these days is that we treat voters like children - and our politicians run campaigns on issues that should never even be making headlines. While there are definitely some things that should remain classified because of the potential loss of life, our governments tend to hold too much "close to the vest", and I think a little more transparency would really help educate the general public about what really goes on between countries. Maybe we wouldn't all get so bent out of shape over silly things like gay marriage if we actually had some more insight into some of the more important matters our government is engaged in.<<< When I wrote the first part you responded to, the word "potentially" must not have registered with you. When it comes to government secrets, especially the kind Assange seems to be fond of divulging, one really never knows the real world consequences of Assange's actions. What he's doing can't be immediately measured. Secondly, you then go on to agree with me by saying "While there are definitely some things that should remain classified because of the potential loss of life", because that's exactly what I said. I also think you overestimate the intelligent level of many voters. Tea party, anyone?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No one wants to see 1,300 innocent people die, but the notion of shooting the messenger here is pretty odd." This isn't about just shooting the messenger. This goes far beyond that. Assange is dealing with stolen information. As far as I'm concerned, in this scenario, he's a fence. Someone has given him information not meant to be published. Property not meant to be taken. He now is taking that hot info off the thief's hands, just like a fence. Or a money launderer. Neither a fence or a money launderer has pure motives, just like Assange.
