• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

wikileaks


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#31 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:29 AM

Let me just be the contrarian once again and say that I have the utmost respect for Julian Assange for doing what he's doing. He's risking his life to do something that should be, according to statists, a basic tenet of democracy -- openness. And now the same statists hate him for it!


So you think that this sort of thing is ok then do you??

http://news.smh.com....1206-18mve.html


Yes.


Care to elaborate on why you think exposing the weaknesses in US defenses to it's enemies is the best way to go? Perhaps you wish to see the US attacked and defeated?

People may have principles, but if they are wrong, no amount of conviction will make them right. Extreme openness just like extreme secrecy is a bad thing. There is a middle ground here and I think governments do a pretty good job of finding that balance.


Well you must live in a dream world of your own then.


No, I just don't subscribe to every tin pot, alu foil hat conspiracy theory about gov out there - now that is the dream world. My gov and the US gov I believe has lots of freedom of information laws plus many members of parliament that believe in freedom of information WHERE REASONABLE! Finding that balance seems to allude some or perhaps it is just that they have some other agenda????????????

#32 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:40 AM

What would you guys be saying when if in the future WikiLeaks is a massively geo-diverse distributed entity, akin to a peer to peer network with no central server or location or person in charge running the show? Are you going to complain about the network of thousands/millions of individuals who believe all information should be transparent? It's not an unrealistic scenario by any means.


You are missing something, there are 2 sides to this equation and you are looking at only one side. Sure, the mechanism may be there to spread the information, but you can only spread information that you have. The government is now cracking down on the access to information, making the chance of obtaining such info less and less.

This is BAD for democracy and freedom of information and gives government excuses to hide information. It will achieve the exact opposite of it's aims to. I expect we will see some huge changes in the next 5 years and in 5 years time, we will all be blissfully ignorant of what the government doesn't want us to know. Wikileaks will have shut down due to lack of INPUT, not because they have any problem distributing information.

#33 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 09 December 2010 - 10:35 AM

Isn't WikiLeaks for whistle blowing? What's wrong with whistle blowing, isn't it a good thing?

Yes, whistle blowing is a good thing, but the latest information dump doesn't appear to be whistle blowing; it appears to be little more than vandalism. International relationships and trust were damaged without any beneficial effect. Transparency is great, but there are some places where transparency is not needed, and may well be harmful. This latest event seems more like ripping the curtains off the bathroom window than providing sunlight where it's needed. Wikileaks should have skipped this one and gone directly to BofA, where a little more transparency might be useful.


Who are you to say there was no beneficial effect? There is no such authority that could objectively evaluate the pros and cons. And there is no need for such an authority.

I note that you use the word "vandalism", which is not applicable to what WikiLeaks is doing:

1. deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings. 2. the conduct or spirit characteristic of the Vandals. 3. willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. 4. a vandalic act.


It is not vandalism on my part if I tell you that the old lady next door will be on a trip next week, and you then decide to rob her place; it is vandalism on yours. If someone decides to bomb these secret strategic places, it will not have been Julian Assange's fault but the bombers'.

Keep in mind that the fear of terrorism is an excuse that can be used for any sort of oppression.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 December 2010 - 07:53 PM

Someone I know posted this in a public forum. I pass it on without comment.

...everybody whingeing on about Wikileaks and freedom to publish private communication and information just send me their credit card information and social insurance numbers. I'll make sure they get posted on public websites so we can all share in your devotion to openness.



#35 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 09 December 2010 - 08:35 PM

Someone I know posted this in a public forum. I pass it on without comment.

...everybody whingeing on about Wikileaks and freedom to publish private communication and information just send me their credit card information and social insurance numbers. I'll make sure they get posted on public websites so we can all share in your devotion to openness.



I think that was the type of openness Clinton wanted, not WikiLeaks. :-D

#36 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 December 2010 - 08:57 PM

I think that was the type of openness Clinton wanted, not WikiLeaks. :-D


Not for herself of course. Only for foreign diplomats

#37 medicineman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 09 December 2010 - 10:34 PM

when the documents reveal american plans to decrease russian influence while expanding its own in eastern europe, it becomes my and everyones business who cares about the delicate balance of power which exists at the moment...

regardless, I am dumbfounded that a man is being hunted down for breaking no law.

#38 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 December 2010 - 11:29 PM

Someone I know posted this in a public forum. I pass it on without comment.

...everybody whingeing on about Wikileaks and freedom to publish private communication and information just send me their credit card information and social insurance numbers. I'll make sure they get posted on public websites so we can all share in your devotion to openness.



I think that was the type of openness Clinton wanted, not WikiLeaks. :-D

That went over my head.???

#39 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 09 December 2010 - 11:53 PM

What would you guys be saying when if in the future WikiLeaks is a massively geo-diverse distributed entity, akin to a peer to peer network with no central server or location or person in charge running the show? Are you going to complain about the network of thousands/millions of individuals who believe all information should be transparent? It's not an unrealistic scenario by any means.


You are missing something, there are 2 sides to this equation and you are looking at only one side. Sure, the mechanism may be there to spread the information, but you can only spread information that you have. The government is now cracking down on the access to information, making the chance of obtaining such info less and less.

This is BAD for democracy and freedom of information and gives government excuses to hide information. It will achieve the exact opposite of it's aims to. I expect we will see some huge changes in the next 5 years and in 5 years time, we will all be blissfully ignorant of what the government doesn't want us to know. Wikileaks will have shut down due to lack of INPUT, not because they have any problem distributing information.

And you are now missing something, what is the alternative? A top down planned implementation of incremental transparency so as to not cause any dramatic disruptions? Seriously? You can't control a decentralised bottom up process, sorry. There is a lot of hand waving in this thread, but where is the real world conclusions to be drawn from your objections? Like JLL said much better than myself, there is no entity that could possibly objectively evaluate this stuff. So what do you propose?

#40 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 December 2010 - 06:08 AM

On a personal note, I've been informed that the scheduled oral examinations for State Department job candidates has unofficially been put off indefinitely, and that chaos has ensued in the department since the latest dump. Current employees are under tremendous pressure, in the form of crippling scrutiny of their backgrounds and work, and harsh treatment of the slightest deviances. Further, there are whispers of a number of ambassadors and staff members being shuffled around the globe, which couldn't come at a better time, of course. So I'm thinking about accepting a job with a forecasting company in Texas, but I have to get my better half to agree first.


This is exactly what Assange was hoping for.

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.


Edited by EmbraceUnity, 10 December 2010 - 06:09 AM.


#41 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 10 December 2010 - 06:17 AM

when the documents reveal american plans to decrease russian influence while expanding its own in eastern europe, it becomes my and everyones business who cares about the delicate balance of power which exists at the moment...


Shocking. I never would have imagined... :blink:

#42 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 December 2010 - 06:33 AM

On a personal note, I've been informed that the scheduled oral examinations for State Department job candidates has unofficially been put off indefinitely, and that chaos has ensued in the department since the latest dump. Current employees are under tremendous pressure, in the form of crippling scrutiny of their backgrounds and work, and harsh treatment of the slightest deviances. Further, there are whispers of a number of ambassadors and staff members being shuffled around the globe, which couldn't come at a better time, of course. So I'm thinking about accepting a job with a forecasting company in Texas, but I have to get my better half to agree first.


This is exactly what Assange was hoping for.

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.

Wow. I don't see how a certain amount of secrecy can be called "unjust". There are some things, like your credit card number and what you said to your best friend about your boss or your spouse, that shouldn't be "open". Some feel that it is impossible to distinguish between what should be open and what should not. I don't think it's that complicated. If something is illegal or evil; if people are being harmed, then it should be open. The sort of undiplomatic truth-telling that one might engage in in a private conversation has no business being broadcast. Not only would that serve no purpose, but it would cause harm.

#43 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 10 December 2010 - 03:50 PM

Presently, I'm so seething with anger over this affair that I can barely contain myself, and have not hesitated to end formerly cherished friendships without a second thought, and spew the most spiteful words that I could possibly summon.


After the pompous text-wall, I saw this and breathed a sigh of relief. I see you're definitely thinking rationally and unemotionally about the issue. Oh and bye :)

My opinion: Assange is a hero and his courage should be commended. From what I've seen so far, there's nothing in the leaks that the publication of which would not improve society and the power that democracy has when it comes to equality and fairness.

I like medicineman's initial take as well: that the extreme opinions thrown at Assange by liberals is an example of new-age fascism. There're definitely parallels between the two ideas.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#44 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 December 2010 - 05:23 PM

Wow. I don't see how a certain amount of secrecy can be called "unjust". There are some things, like your credit card number and what you said to your best friend about your boss or your spouse, that shouldn't be "open". Some feel that it is impossible to distinguish between what should be open and what should not. I don't think it's that complicated. If something is illegal or evil; if people are being harmed, then it should be open. The sort of undiplomatic truth-telling that one might engage in in a private conversation has no business being broadcast. Not only would that serve no purpose, but it would cause harm.


Tell that to Hillary Clinton (we only know about this thanks to Wikileaks)

#45 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 10 December 2010 - 05:32 PM

Presently, I'm so seething with anger over this affair that I can barely contain myself, and have not hesitated to end formerly cherished friendships without a second thought, and spew the most spiteful words that I could possibly summon.


After the pompous text-wall, I saw this and breathed a sigh of relief. I see you're definitely thinking rationally and unemotionally about the issue. Oh and bye :)

My opinion: Assange is a hero and his courage should be commended. From what I've seen so far, there's nothing in the leaks that the publication of which would not improve society and the power that democracy has when it comes to equality and fairness.

I like medicineman's initial take as well: that the extreme opinions thrown at Assange by liberals is an example of new-age fascism. There're definitely parallels between the two ideas.


Ain't just liberals trashing Assange. Half the criticism comes from the authoritarian right, and all the threats to arrest and try him are from the right. The "liberals" have a better understanding of due process and constitutional limits. It's like the old wild west where the liberal sheriff confronts the lynch mob and says "You can't just hang a man! We'll try him first and then hang him!" I believe Assange's support comes from extreme libertarians and techno-anarchists. He himself is an absolutist, an authoritarian personality who carries an impractical idealistic philosophy to its extreme, which has caused no little dissent in his own organization, and before the latest leaks. There are many ways he could have released the information to much the same effect without endangering his organization, but he has a desire to be in big-brother's face with it. He gets himself in trouble just to pass the time.

#46 Mortuorum

  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:03 PM

Our Corporate State Government hardly functions in a straightforward manner regarding anything. Most mainstream media sources and socioeconomic/political discourses circulated are little more than Punch and Judy Shows devoid of any real substance. There may indeed be significantly more to the "Wikileaks" document releases than what they seem to be at face value, there is even a possibility that they are "intentional" ‘Psy-Op’ deployment.......I strongly suggest reading this article:

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=22278

#47 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:48 PM

Interesting how conspiracy theories keep surfacing ....

Anyway,

... Government hardly functions in a straightforward manner ...

The one and only question that comes to mind is "what happened to parliament / congress?"
I did hint towards this before, but probably not in a sufficiently direct manner to generate any reply. In general, the rise of populist parties in the EU is attributed to the level of elitism within current political structures. The result being that "the general population" did lose contact with most if not all political processes. Along this line, WikiLeaks could be viewed as being a populist reply to this increasing gap. Populist not in the sense of source and intention, but in the sense of technical implementation and effect. If wars are being sold to us using marketing techniques similar to selling Pepsi, something within the political control mechanisms did become dysfunctional, no question about that. But it's my opinion that effort should be directed towards questioning the quality of our elected parliament. And not only by questioning it, but also by putting personal time and energy on the table to improve it. Sitting back and drinking a beer while reading cheap newspaper articles about WikiLeaks is not going to cut the crap, it's going to increase it. Nobody is served by the current increase of polarization. At best, WikiLeaks is going to act as a wakeup call, albeit based on sentiment in stead of rational behavior.
But maybe to assume that political wakeup calls are able to arise associated with a certain basic level of dignity is already beyond "elitism" ... :sad:

#48 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:55 PM

Someone I know posted this in a public forum. I pass it on without comment.

...everybody whingeing on about Wikileaks and freedom to publish private communication and information just send me their credit card information and social insurance numbers. I'll make sure they get posted on public websites so we can all share in your devotion to openness.

Counter pass on without comment.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Information is AntiFragile (think of wikileaks). The more a central force tries to control it, the more it spreads, as it feeds on attention. This illustrates the fat-tails in informational compared to thermodynamic randomness.



#49 Mortuorum

  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 11 December 2010 - 12:27 AM

[quote name='Brainbox' timestamp='1292024935' post='444255']
Interesting how conspiracy theories keep surfacing ....



Anyone, however doubtful/skeptical upon any level, regarding the existential validation of corporate government "conspiracy paranoia", should read this chilling and irrefutable article:

http://www.truth-out...xperiments61565

Edited by Mortuorum, 11 December 2010 - 12:28 AM.


#50 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 11 December 2010 - 04:40 AM

Someone I know posted this in a public forum. I pass it on without comment.

...everybody whingeing on about Wikileaks and freedom to publish private communication and information just send me their credit card information and social insurance numbers. I'll make sure they get posted on public websites so we can all share in your devotion to openness.


Incidentally, among the revelations in the Iraq War document dump, was the Social Security numbers of soldiers deployed in Iraq. According to all accounts, the presence of this information wasn't an oversight, but a deliberate act of dubious value.

#51 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 11 December 2010 - 04:48 AM

Presently, I'm so seething with anger over this affair that I can barely contain myself, and have not hesitated to end formerly cherished friendships without a second thought, and spew the most spiteful words that I could possibly summon.


After the pompous text-wall, I saw this and breathed a sigh of relief. I see you're definitely thinking rationally and unemotionally about the issue. Oh and bye :)

My opinion: Assange is a hero and his courage should be commended. From what I've seen so far, there's nothing in the leaks that the publication of which would not improve society and the power that democracy has when it comes to equality and fairness.

I like medicineman's initial take as well: that the extreme opinions thrown at Assange by liberals is an example of new-age fascism. There're definitely parallels between the two ideas.


My decision to sever ties with a long standing friend wasn't based solely on our disagreement over the wisdom of the leaking of the diplomatic cables, but because of a number of issues of contention that were judged to be quite difficult to reconcile, and a source of growing interpersonal tension. The latest leak was simply the climactic moment in our relationship, but we could have just as easily parted ways over a number of issues. But this is my concern, and given your mercurial and extreme nature, I think you're hardly in a position to lecture me on rationality and emotional detachment.

Edited by Rol82, 11 December 2010 - 10:31 PM.


#52 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 11 December 2010 - 04:55 AM

On a personal note, I've been informed that the scheduled oral examinations for State Department job candidates has unofficially been put off indefinitely, and that chaos has ensued in the department since the latest dump. Current employees are under tremendous pressure, in the form of crippling scrutiny of their backgrounds and work, and harsh treatment of the slightest deviances. Further, there are whispers of a number of ambassadors and staff members being shuffled around the globe, which couldn't come at a better time, of course. So I'm thinking about accepting a job with a forecasting company in Texas, but I have to get my better half to agree first.


This is exactly what Assange was hoping for.

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.


Yes, he should be congratulated for crippling an agency that has distinguished itself as first and foremost, an advocate for averting the incidence of war.

#53 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:01 AM

Presently, I'm so seething with anger over this affair that I can barely contain myself, and have not hesitated to end formerly cherished friendships without a second thought, and spew the most spiteful words that I could possibly summon.


After the pompous text-wall, I saw this and breathed a sigh of relief. I see you're definitely thinking rationally and unemotionally about the issue. Oh and bye :)

My opinion: Assange is a hero and his courage should be commended. From what I've seen so far, there's nothing in the leaks that the publication of which would not improve society and the power that democracy has when it comes to equality and fairness.

I like medicineman's initial take as well: that the extreme opinions thrown at Assange by liberals is an example of new-age fascism. There're definitely parallels between the two ideas.


Ain't just liberals trashing Assange. Half the criticism comes from the authoritarian right, and all the threats to arrest and try him are from the right. The "liberals" have a better understanding of due process and constitutional limits. It's like the old wild west where the liberal sheriff confronts the lynch mob and says "You can't just hang a man! We'll try him first and then hang him!" I believe Assange's support comes from extreme libertarians and techno-anarchists. He himself is an absolutist, an authoritarian personality who carries an impractical idealistic philosophy to its extreme, which has caused no little dissent in his own organization, and before the latest leaks. There are many ways he could have released the information to much the same effect without endangering his organization, but he has a desire to be in big-brother's face with it. He gets himself in trouble just to pass the time.


When Amnesty International and Glenn Beck are nodding in general agreement, something must be terribly wrong.

#54 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:04 AM

that is unfortunate rol. you have been a very productive member of this forum. reconsider, and at least join us occasionally in some political banter.


Don't worry, the only thing that will change is the frequency of my posting.

#55 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:23 AM

this story is unfolding in a painful manner. Assange is arrested for failing to wear a condom in one instance and for continuing sex despite a broken condom in another instance. this is horrific.

No, not all of the facts surrounding the case have been made public, and I think it would be quite hypocritical to presume innocence before the legal proceedings are finished. I strongly suspect that there is much more to this case, because I find it difficult to fathom that a prosecutor in Sweden---of all countries---would allow herself to become a US pawn, and create a potentially career destroying case of prosecuting a man for merely refusing to wear a condom---which is not an illegal act in Sweden. At the very least, Assange is a misogynist with deep seeded issues with the opposite sex, and admitting as much wouldn't be the same as yielding to criticisms of Wikileaks as an organization. The man and the organization must be separated in this case, and if he is guilty of the charges, he must be punished without regard to his other actions. Of all the countries in the European Union, Sweden is one of the least likely to be a US pawn, so the attempts of Assange and his contemptible lawyer to suggest otherwise must be treated with great suspicion. Additionally, to suggest the actions of Marriane Ny, and the government of Sweden are analogous to fascism demonstrates a very infantile understanding of political philosophy and history, and diminishes the wisdom of your past posts. So let's at least stop carelessly throwing the word around, and in general, dispense with the flimsy analogies.

Edited by Rol82, 11 December 2010 - 05:26 AM.


#56 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 December 2010 - 01:27 AM

Wow. I don't see how a certain amount of secrecy can be called "unjust". There are some things, like your credit card number and what you said to your best friend about your boss or your spouse, that shouldn't be "open". Some feel that it is impossible to distinguish between what should be open and what should not. I don't think it's that complicated. If something is illegal or evil; if people are being harmed, then it should be open. The sort of undiplomatic truth-telling that one might engage in in a private conversation has no business being broadcast. Not only would that serve no purpose, but it would cause harm.

Tell that to Hillary Clinton (we only know about this thanks to Wikileaks)

Spying by diplomats and embassy personnel? I'm shocked.

#57 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 12 December 2010 - 08:38 PM

I note that you use the word "vandalism", which is not applicable to what WikiLeaks is doing:

1. deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings. 2. the conduct or spirit characteristic of the Vandals. 3. willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. 4. a vandalic act.


It is not vandalism on my part if I tell you that the old lady next door will be on a trip next week, and you then decide to rob her place; it is vandalism on yours . If someone decides to bomb these secret strategic places, it will not have been Julian Assange's fault but the bombers'.


Gimme me a break, sir. Semantics aside, the analogy here should be perhaps more like going to a skid row district and posting the old lady's exact lock codes and shit all over walls, whatever you choose to call that, it's definitely not something to be praised and encouraged. The guy didn't impose on himself the effort to even comb through this and conceal the kind of info as in the article PWAIN linked to which he absolutely should have, he basically just said "Dig in guys, see what you can find and then tell me". The general public has zero use of such security infrastructure data, whereas a potential terrorist probably might have a good deal. So, why is Assange so great again ? Let's go and live a bit more in the world of actions' consequences than their instrisic ideological nobility.

To be clear, I think he shouldn't be punished in any considerable way, it's outrageous what is happening to him right now, but IMO he's not really helping any forces in the world worthy of help either with this latest dump.

#58 medicineman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 12 December 2010 - 10:32 PM

this story is unfolding in a painful manner. Assange is arrested for failing to wear a condom in one instance and for continuing sex despite a broken condom in another instance. this is horrific.

No, not all of the facts surrounding the case have been made public, and I think it would be quite hypocritical to presume innocence before the legal proceedings are finished. I strongly suspect that there is much more to this case, because I find it difficult to fathom that a prosecutor in Sweden---of all countries---would allow herself to become a US pawn, and create a potentially career destroying case of prosecuting a man for merely refusing to wear a condom---which is not an illegal act in Sweden. At the very least, Assange is a misogynist with deep seeded issues with the opposite sex, and admitting as much wouldn't be the same as yielding to criticisms of Wikileaks as an organization. The man and the organization must be separated in this case, and if he is guilty of the charges, he must be punished without regard to his other actions. Of all the countries in the European Union, Sweden is one of the least likely to be a US pawn, so the attempts of Assange and his contemptible lawyer to suggest otherwise must be treated with great suspicion. Additionally, to suggest the actions of Marriane Ny, and the government of Sweden are analogous to fascism demonstrates a very infantile understanding of political philosophy and history, and diminishes the wisdom of your past posts. So let's at least stop carelessly throwing the word around, and in general, dispense with the flimsy analogies.


You need to relax. I never equated the actions of the Swedish government to fascism. I take it as fact, that any government would wish to protect its citizens from any assault or harm. The Swiss bank, Paypal, Amazon, the general reaction of the media, and the censorship issues of wikileaks in these liberal democracies is where the brunt of my critique falls. When someone's account is frozen and his money becomes inaccessible to him, when information is being censored with might, when a person is demonized for absolutely no legal crime as of now, or holding someone in captivity with no case or crime, the only thing missing is shipping him to a gulag and getting it over with.

Maybe you do need a break from this forum. I remember catching your JFK and other posts following, and being quite impressed by it (and I was not the only one), but it seems like your ego has gotten so big as of recently, you now find no need for debate, and instead you grace us with verbal attacks, tasteless insults and plain vulgarity, cloaked in fancy language. For the sake of preserving our online kinship, I will ignore you in this thread and pretend you are not throwing petty comments at the fellows here (including myself), I will pretend that you are not being pompous and rude, and I will refrain from any verbal retaliation which might exacerbate what seems like an ill temperament on your part. Good night.

#59 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 13 December 2010 - 01:05 AM

Just noticed this thread


It's a bit late but last week I had an article on this subject published at H+ Magazine: Wikileaks & The War Between Secrecy and Transparency | h+ Magazine


It sparked some controversy.

#60 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 13 December 2010 - 02:22 AM

this story is unfolding in a painful manner. Assange is arrested for failing to wear a condom in one instance and for continuing sex despite a broken condom in another instance. this is horrific.

No, not all of the facts surrounding the case have been made public, and I think it would be quite hypocritical to presume innocence before the legal proceedings are finished. I strongly suspect that there is much more to this case, because I find it difficult to fathom that a prosecutor in Sweden---of all countries---would allow herself to become a US pawn, and create a potentially career destroying case of prosecuting a man for merely refusing to wear a condom---which is not an illegal act in Sweden. At the very least, Assange is a misogynist with deep seeded issues with the opposite sex, and admitting as much wouldn't be the same as yielding to criticisms of Wikileaks as an organization. The man and the organization must be separated in this case, and if he is guilty of the charges, he must be punished without regard to his other actions. Of all the countries in the European Union, Sweden is one of the least likely to be a US pawn, so the attempts of Assange and his contemptible lawyer to suggest otherwise must be treated with great suspicion. Additionally, to suggest the actions of Marriane Ny, and the government of Sweden are analogous to fascism demonstrates a very infantile understanding of political philosophy and history, and diminishes the wisdom of your past posts. So let's at least stop carelessly throwing the word around, and in general, dispense with the flimsy analogies.


You need to relax. I never equated the actions of the Swedish government to fascism. I take it as fact, that any government would wish to protect its citizens from any assault or harm. The Swiss bank, Paypal, Amazon, the general reaction of the media, and the censorship issues of wikileaks in these liberal democracies is where the brunt of my critique falls. When someone's account is frozen and his money becomes inaccessible to him, when information is being censored with might, when a person is demonized for absolutely no legal crime as of now, or holding someone in captivity with no case or crime, the only thing missing is shipping him to a gulag and getting it over with.

Maybe you do need a break from this forum. I remember catching your JFK and other posts following, and being quite impressed by it (and I was not the only one), but it seems like your ego has gotten so big as of recently, you now find no need for debate, and instead you grace us with verbal attacks, tasteless insults and plain vulgarity, cloaked in fancy language. For the sake of preserving our online kinship, I will ignore you in this thread and pretend you are not throwing petty comments at the fellows here (including myself), I will pretend that you are not being pompous and rude, and I will refrain from any verbal retaliation which might exacerbate what seems like an ill temperament on your part. Good night.

I need to relax, and quit this messageboard? Wow, how quickly your sentiments change when I have the temerity to describe your thinking to be "infantile" in just this case...

Anyway, although I'm once again tempted by the logic of leaving, I feel compelled at the very least to point out that you're being absurdly hysterical with the analogies to fascism and Stalinism, and with your strained misrepresentation of my posts. Indeed, from your isolated isle of fuzzy idealism, you're completely missing the nuances to the criticisms that have been made, and have decided to bizarrely transform the controversy into a Manichean debate of fascism versus liberty. However, only if there was an absolute right to free speech in liberal democracies, if businesses didn't have the discretion to choose their clients, and if it was unprecedented for a nation state to request an Interpol warrant for an alleged sex crime, you might have a point. But that's certainly not the case, and instead, you're recklessly providing support to an organization that evidently believes that the notion of absolute transparency should come at the great expense of other important considerations of governments, such as: human security, inter-state peace, national security, bureaucratic performance, and the effectiveness of diplomacy. So I have to ask, when exactly does this zealous crusade for transparency stop? The loss of lives? An economic depression? The outbreak of war? The collapse of civil governance? A breakdown in international relations?

In my opinion, if there was something analogous to a My Lai Massacre in the cables, then it would have been undoubtedly leaked by this point, because as our government has painfully learned, no terrible secrets can be kept in an age where over 800,000 people have access to classified information. Otherwise, the cables would have been made public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, and by an administration that has distinguished itself as being exceptionally more committed to transparency than any of its predecessors. Instead, we have regressed to the Cold War-like position of the Bush administration, and consequentially, the effort to improve transparency has been brought to a screeching halt. Indeed, this Jacobin like perversion of philosophy is nothing more than anarchist madness, because to no avail, I've labored to find anything groundbreakingly important to come out of this morally dubious and indiscriminately destructive enterprise. I mean really, can anyone provide any evidence that the world, in balance, is a better place because of the latest releases from Wikileaks?

Furthermore, from what we already know, Assange is accused of doing the following: using his weight to pin down the victims, insisting on not wearing a condom, refusing to take an STD test, initiating sexual intercourse whilst one of the subjects was sleeping, and continuing to have sex in spite of the objections of the victims. But legal proceedings have not begun in earnest, so it's possible that more sordid details will be unearthed. Yet because some have an affinity with the ideas being espoused by Assange, his innocence is being assumed without regard to the possible suffering of the accused, and many are lamentably accepting the schizophrenic conspiracy theories being propagated by legions of paranoids and himself. But as nation states and the private sector have responded to the crisis, no national laws have been broken, there is no evidence that the United States has subjected other states or entities to substantial pressure, and beyond examining the legal possibility of prosecuting Assange under the provisions of the Espionage Act of 1918, there is no evidence that retaliations have occurred largely at the behest of the United States---unless phone calls expressing concern to companies and other states constitutes serious pressure. Rather, the indiscriminate nature of Wikileaks has galvanized nation states and the private sector to frustrate their efforts, because they all realize that they could very well be the next targets.


This whole controversy is emblematic of the pervasively stagnating and corrosive refusal to make any compromises with cherished values, in spite of obstacles, impracticality, and the costs of remaining inflexibly married to a controversial and polarizing position. And with extensive checks and balances, the demise of Wikileaks would not expose liberal democracies to any great peril, just remove one of many obstacles to optimal efficiency. The relative gains of absolutism have been exposed extensively by game theory, so it would behoove us to adopt a more realistic and pragmatic approach to all matters, before intransigence becomes suicidal.

Edited by Rol82, 13 December 2010 - 02:48 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users