quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

No, I believe it is in the name of free speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Maybe Rudd now wants to use force against the English test squad.

The worst thing to come from Wikileaks is likely to be a clampdown on web sites by Governments. Free speech is one thing but the Americans, rightly in my view, wont stand for leaks that endanger US trrops or Americas security. The listing of soft targets abroad, such as those thought vital to America, make every one of the firms named vulnerable to attack.

As for Assange, I hope that when he faces extradition charges from the UK to Sweden, that our judges insist that he isnt handed to the US via the back door. If he has broken any American laws, then the US should go through the proper legal channels to have him extradited, extraordinary rendition ( Kidnapping to you and me ) just wont cut it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blackpearl81

Here's how I see it:

Julian Assange is a scumbag. Plain and simple. Who or what gave him the right to post classified documents? So, what - just because someone handed him a manilla envelope full of classified documents, he's allowed to post them - all in the name of "transparency" ?


Another thing - is he going to take responsibility for whatever the terrorists do with that information (assuming they get ahold of it eventually)? If these leaks have any identifiable information in them (despite said information being redacted), one can only imagine what the terrorists will do with that: assasination attempts, more bombings, etc. I hardly doubt that. He's an opportunist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blackpearl81

Here's how I see it:

Julian Assange is a scumbag. Plain and simple. Who or what gave him the right to post classified documents? So, what - just because someone handed him a manilla envelope full of classified documents, he's allowed to post them - all in the name of "transparency" ?


Another thing - is he going to take responsibility for whatever the terrorists do with that information (assuming they get ahold of it eventually)? If these leaks have any identifiable information in them (despite said information being redacted), one can only imagine what the terrorists will do with that: assasination attempts, more bombings, etc. I hardly doubt that. He's an opportunist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Er, you are aware of that unilateral extradition treaty we have with the 'States? The one that there was all of the fuss about Blair sneaking through Parliament during a recess, in order to impress his retarded faux Texan boyfriend?
It'll be a change to hand over somebody who isn't a muslim to the yanks with it, I suppose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Someone passed the files to Assange. Assange 'released' the files. The media published them. By any standard, the media is equally culpable (if there is any culpability to be handed out) or equally praiseworthy.

We don't hear any calls in the US for action against the editor or publisher of the New York Times, or other media outlets. Why pick on Assange? He's just the messenger.

Daniel Ellsberg, who stole and released the Pentagon Papers is rightly regarded as a hero by many. What's the difference between Assange and Ellsberg?

Any damage in the wikileaks files was created by the people who wrote them, not the people who released them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

No, I believe it is in the name of free speech.

What about the freedom not to be killed, for those placed in danger due to the leaks. Free speech comes with a certain responsibility towards others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

From what I have read there was nothing in those documents that would have placed anyone in danger.

They just showed the inner workings of government that were embarrassing to those involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

From what I have read there was nothing in those documents that would have placed anyone in danger.

They just showed the inner workings of government that were embarrassing to those involved.

If that were all I would agree with you. I think the fact that companies overseas considered vital to US interests could be in danger from terror attacks. IE, attacks on the US by proxy. I am also concerned that some of the leaked documents are said to name US agents, and or sympathisers overseas. From what I read there was a report about one guy who was an ex sporting star at home, and as such easily indentifiable, exposing these people even inadvertantly just isnt right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I've been accused of being naive for asking this before, but how did we get to the point where government secrecy is regarded as not only acceptable, but necessary, and how much of that needed secrecy is really valid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I've been accused of being naive for asking this before, but how did we get to the point where government secrecy is regarded as not only acceptable, but necessary, and how much of that needed secrecy is really valid?

Your question doesnt answer my post though, would you not class the safety of those put at risk as a valid enough reason not to leak some of the info ? ( Im not talking about the gossip here, just the stuff that puts people at risk )

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Daniel Ellsberg, who stole and released the Pentagon Papers is rightly regarded as a hero by many. What's the difference between Assange and Ellsberg?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Your question is a moot point unless you can point out to me who was put at risk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The media here said Assange and his pals spent 4 months co-ordinating with the US Administration and the media outlets redacting names and IDs from the files so that individuals at risk weren't identified. This appears to address your concerns but I can't guarantee you that this is in fact the case.

Better Assange speaks for himself - here's an opinion piece he had published here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332


Here Assange does an interview where he describes the process whereby names are redacted for safety purposes:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22256

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Your question is a moot point unless you can point out to me who was put at risk.

If you dont think that the naming of civilian establishments considered useful to the USA puts those same places at risk, nothing I type will persuade you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


We don't hear any calls in the US for action against the editor or publisher of the New York Times, or other media outlets.