Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

indeed.

As noted, if we're that lame can't we just hire some ex KGB guys to stick him with an umbrella or maybe sic the IRS on him? If anyone knows how to put someone through a tortured painful death, its the IRS.

The Obama administration is really starting to look incompetent in not stopping this stuff. ZombieRoosevelt would know how to handle this!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_wikileaks_secret_sites

But other locations, such as mines, manufacturers of components used in weapons systems, and vaccine and antivenom factories, likely were not widely known. The Associated Press has decided against publishing their names due to the sensitive nature of the information.

Ahtman wrote:I'm anti-Castro, does that mean I am also a CIA stooge?

Only if you have ties to the CIA and have received funding from them

Monster Rain wrote:

IceRaptor wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.

With which part? That the 'first world' countries have it easy, or that that's somehow a bad thing?

If that's what you're taking from that, you're missing the point.

People in "first world nations" live in a sterile, insular bubble of privilege that skews their view of reality. I doubt if someone personally knew someone from Afghanistan that may have been killed as a direct result of their name being released by wikileaks they would be so cavalier about the subject.

Agreed, i dont think anyone here really know what its like to starve or what living in a warzone is like

Monster Rain wrote: I doubt if someone personally knew someone from Afghanistan that may have been killed as a direct result of their name being released by wikileaks they would be so cavalier about the subject.

The point above can be flipped to apply to any person around the world, though.

'I doubt if someone personally knew someone from America that may have been killed as a direct result of taking a shortcut in their sweatshop to they would be so cavalier about the subject.'

'I doubt if someone personally knew someone from England that may have been killed as a direct result of using leaded paint would be so cavalier about the subject.'

'I doubt if someone personally knew someone from the next town over that may have been killed as a direct result of dumping aspirin down the drain would be so cavalier about the subject.'

If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free. But that's not a phenomenon limited to 'first world' countries either. If someone's outside of your tribe, you tend not to give one fig about them.

My wife once visited some family friends in Pakistan for nearly a month. When the towers fell, the family she stayed with spent the better part of their day confirming that she was alright (she lived in middle America, so was obviously completely safe from harm, but they didn't realize that at the time). Their friends in the village who had met her regarded the news with distaste and some empathy for the losses. Those that didn't meet her rooted for the attacks. This was a poor village by most standards. The 'sterile bubble' applies pretty much the world over, not just to privileged countries.

So I'll agree with you in the aggregate (people tend not to have empathy) but it's a general trend, not one focused in countries that have wealth.

Do you subscribe to the view that personal experience is the only source of knowledge?

IceRaptor wrote: If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free. But that's not a phenomenon limited to 'first world' countries either. If someone's outside of your tribe, you tend not to give one fig about them.

Also not the point, but I don't have the patience to explain it again. Phryxis can pick up on this if he feels like it.

You said this:

IceRaptor wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
The fundamental problem of the first world these days is that we have almost no connection at all to real consequence. We just flounce through our lives in total safety, total freedom, total divorcement from anything unsafe or upsetting.

I would love to know how your concept of 'total safety, total freedom, and total divorcement from anything unsafe' applies to the destitute in 'first world countries' - or even the lower end of the American middle class. Sure we don't suffer under a genocidal anarchy or are exposed to torture on a routine basis - but that hardly puts the majority of us into a 'totally safe' fantasy land you're describing.

You compared the destitute of the first world (often overweight, with access to clean water and healthcare in an emergency) with those in developing nations which to me shows a lack of perspective. That's pretty much the bottom line.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you subscribe to the view that personal experience is the only source of knowledge?

I don't know if you're directing this at me, but the answer is no. It's not the only source.

It may be the best source of knowledge though.

IceRaptor wrote: If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free. But that's not a phenomenon limited to 'first world' countries either. If someone's outside of your tribe, you tend not to give one fig about them.

Air strike kills 40 people in Afganistan vs air strike kills 40 people in Ohio

which affects you more?

Monster Rain wrote:
You compared the destitute of the first world (often overweight, with access to clean water and healthcare in an emergency) with those in developing nations which to me shows a lack of perspective. That's pretty much the bottom line.

I didn't realize the suffering of the first world destitute that die of starvation was somehow different than that of the third world destitute that die of starvation - I was operating under the assumption dying from starvation was dying from starvation no matter where you were. And I already conceded that in aggregate third world nations have a greater level of suffering than first world, by a significant factor.

I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'. I'm not disputing that Americans are generally self-involved, or that we could do with some perspective about our place in the greater scheme of the world.

Gibbsey wrote:
Air strike kills 40 people in Afganistan vs air strike kills 40 people in Ohio

which affects you more?

Ohio, obviously. Isn't that exactly the point I made above? Every person is more impacted by losses that are socially close to them?

IceRaptor wrote:I didn't realize the suffering of the first world destitute that die of starvation was somehow different than that of the third world destitute that die of starvation - I was operating under the assumption dying from starvation was dying from starvation no matter where you were.

From the perspective of a US citizen, I'm baffled as to how someone in this country could starve to death what with all of these social programs that are in place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IceRaptor wrote:I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'.

It's not a matter of being "bad" or "good", but more of a matter of that it is real and not some ethereal concept that happens "over there".

IceRaptor wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
You compared the destitute of the first world (often overweight, with access to clean water and healthcare in an emergency) with those in developing nations which to me shows a lack of perspective. That's pretty much the bottom line.

I didn't realize the suffering of the first world destitute that die of starvation was somehow different than that of the third world destitute that die of starvation - I was operating under the assumption dying from starvation was dying from starvation no matter where you were. And I already conceded that in aggregate third world nations have a greater level of suffering than first world, by a significant factor.

I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'. I'm not disputing that Americans are generally self-involved, or that we could do with some perspective about our place in the greater scheme of the world.

Gibbsey wrote:
Air strike kills 40 people in Afganistan vs air strike kills 40 people in Ohio

which affects you more?

Ohio, obviously. Isn't that exactly the point I made above? Every person is more impacted by losses that are socially close to them?

The point is it wouldent matter if it was Ohio or New York it would still affect you even though you may not personaly know the people affected. A tragidy happens in some obscure country and it doesent affect people, my point is this extends further than your social circle, but a country in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the world? You may think that what happened was horrible but in a week you would have forgotten entirely about it.

Monster Rain wrote:
From the perspective of a US citizen, I'm baffled as to how someone in this country could starve to death what with all of these social programs that are in place.

You and me both, but it does happen. It's exceptionally rare, of course - but the rate is not zero. Ohio doesn't provide malnutrition as a cause of death, but the CDC lists it in their http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm statistics. Assuming that the malnutrition category covers as wide range of causes, the likelihood of dying due to starvation should be a rounding error, but it's still present.

I know in the local news there are occasionally reports of homeless dying due to starvation / exposure, and they are just as easily dismissed as Afghan war footage.

Monster Rain wrote:It's not a matter of being "bad" or "good", but more of a matter of that it is real and not some ethereal concept that happens "over there".

Suffering happens everywhere, and no one place has a stranglehold on it. I doubt seriously the family of a child dying of leukemia in a 'safe hospital bed' doesn't understand the concept of suffering, despite having access to fresh water, warmth and advanced medical treatment. Just because that family doesn't devote their time to improving the lot of someone in Africa doesn't mean they don't understand suffering.

Will they ever know the hopelessness of the family in Africa? Almost assuredly not. But that doesn't mean they need to be 'taught the value of suffering' just to instill that empathy into them.

Gibbsey wrote:my point is this extends further than your social circle, but a country in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the world? You may think that what happened was horrible but in a week you would have forgotten entirely about it.

Oh, then I agree. It was a poor choice of words on my part to say social 'circle', when I probably should have used 'community'. Geography typically implies empathy, but familiarity almost always does.

Natural disasters are prime examples about how lots of concern pops up at the beginning of the recovery, but quickly tapers off and people forget about it within a short period of time. Like perhaps the 2004 tsunami?

If we're talking about the States' involvement in Iraq, that's not a peacekeeping operation, it's being a belligerent.

Well, whatever... That's another debate. My use of the term "peacekeeping" was to capture the fact that the US had great success in the intial combat phase, and since then has struggled a great deal with keeping things calm in the aftermath. This is commonly referred to as the "peacekeeping" phase, and it's rife with terrible stories of human tragedy.

That the 'first world' countries have it easy, or that that's somehow a bad thing?

I didn't mean to imply the latter, at least not in the net. Overall, I'd rather be safe. But, one of the downsides of safety is inexperience with danger, and that results in some of the confusions we see the American consciousness exhibiting. We've lost perspective on what is real danger, and what isn't. We've lost perspective on a lot of things that other cultures deal with day to day.

If one believes that the US is generally a force for stability and good in the world (and I do), and our loss of perspective is negatively impacting our ability to continue to be that force (which I think it is), then one might hope for something to come along and reverse that trend. I'd love for that simply to be a natural, organic shift in our society, or to be brought about by some charismatic leader, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather see the American people go through some hardships if that's what's required to avert more and greater hardships down the line.

Unless I missed the part about roaming Swedish death squads or murderous Australian prime ministers?

No, apparently you missed the part about Sweden and Australia being part of the first world.

There are over a billion people in China and India each. In both of those places there is very little in the way of social justice or legal due process. Get on the wrong side of the local powerbase, and you literally can be pulled from your bed and shot. That's pretty well near half the world's population right there. Now throw in 90% of Africa, a lot of South/Latin America, Bangladesh, etc. etc. etc. The MAJORITY of people live in situations where the "rule of law" does not exist, and they are subject to the whims of local government/gangs/thugs.

So, you're wrong. The vast majority of people aren't safe. Quite the opposite. It's pretty much only the 1st world, and parts of the 2nd, and that's a small minority, perhaps 25% of the world population.

Avoiding pain seems like a highly successful 'processing of reality', that's tightly ingrained into our animal nature. Are we simply lacking some protestant spirit of suffering that you believe have value?

The US is deeply in debt. We simply don't have enough money to do all the things we want to do. Despite this, we're trying to assure that everyone has universal healthcare.

Now, I'm not trying to get into that debate, I'm just saying it's a real thing going on. It's a situation where it may simply NOT be possible for everyone to get the level of healthcare they need. If it's simply NOT possible, do we have the perspective required to make real, rational choices.

For example, let's say you've got two people who have been bitten by snakes, and only one dose of antivenom. What do you do?

I fear that we're the sort of people who would say "save them both!" Ok, but you can't. One dose. Who gets it? "Save BOTH! Nobody should have to die of snakebite." But this isn't Hollywood. What do you ACTUALLY do?

The answer I'd suggest would be something along the lines of figuring out what application of venom has the best chance of maximizing survival. You have to get practical and serious. I'm not sure we have the perspective to do that as effectively as we should.

If you want to talk about humans inability to emphasize with anyone outside of their known circle of associates, feel free.

The word you're looking for is "empathize" and no, that's not what I'm talking about. People all over the world have an increasingly difficult time empathizing with other people the further those people are from their experience. That's understood. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about having REAL experience with what hardship is like, in order that you can make real decisions around that hardship.

I'm disputing the premise that you need to suffer in order to reach some conclusion that suffering is 'bad'.

Nobody is suggesting that. It's clear that having your child die is bad. You don't need much perspective taking skill or life experience to know that.

On the other hand, if you've had a child die, you can really feel, firsthand, just how completely and totally irrelevant it would be to have to settle for a 46" LCD TV instead of a 52". But, unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who lack the life experience to put those events in their proper perspective.

I don't want to kill children to teach people that lesson. Not at all. My point is more that if we spend our time dwelling on the size of our TVs, and then, eventually, think that it somehow stacks up against the loss of a child in significance, we've so badly lost the plot that eventually the world WILL start killing off our kids. You simply can't be that ignorant and sheltered and NOT start suffering for it.

Frazzled wrote:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hopes to hobble the U.S. government.
Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."

Purposeful destabilization of a society is the purest definition of terrorism. Transparency is a laudable goal, this crap about trying to balkanize (ugh) the US government is NOT laudable and does nothing to help anyone.

This fether is a tool and his attitude has completely spoiled a concept I originally supported.

I suppose his premise is "oh well if they lock down internally its not OUR fault...we just posted the leaks!", although to what end is all of this being done? Bringing attention to the murder of civilians is good, trying to hobble the US government because you just want to be anti-American.....


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????


As for the comments about starvation in first world countries.....there may not be folks that die of it but plenty of folks here in the USA go to bed hungry on a regular basis.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:Fraz, you should have posted the link for that. It was an interesting piece, combining some interesting observations, including a pretty decent summary of Assange's beliefs, the silly, comparing him to a mail bomber, and the incredibly wrong, such as the claim no evidence of wrongdoing coming from the diplomatic cables.

Sorry, Op Ed this morning-Wall Street Journal

Cheers. Ah, so WSJ... that would explain the combination of insight and complete lunacy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_wikileaks_secret_sites

But other locations, such as mines, manufacturers of components used in weapons systems, and vaccine and antivenom factories, likely were not widely known. The Associated Press has decided against publishing their names due to the sensitive nature of the information.

What's interesting to me is that the government suddenly becomes infallible when considering national security. Many people don't trust the state to allocate funds for highway construction, but when something like an anti-venom factory in South Africa is identified as critical to national security, no one bats an eyelash. I mean, the nature of anti-venom is such that it only works with certain types of animals, and the SAMIR anti-venom made in South Africa is only useful in counteracting the venom found in certain African and Arabian creatures.

Given that, the extent to which the items on this list actually represent critical assets is questionable. In fact, I'd argue that any facility that isn't obviously central to national security probably isn't central to national security at all.

In fact, I'd argue that any facility that isn't obviously central to national security probably isn't central to national security at all.

I'm sure there are many entries on the list that are laughable.

The real question is why "leak" it? I think that virtually everyone in this thread is coming to the same conclusion, which is that Assange is not a "whistleblower" he's just a vindictive little clown.

His goal is not to help the people, it's to hurt the governments.

Any positives that may come of that are purely coincidental. Kinda like how fish eat when a hippo takes a dump. Only Assange is more malicious. So he's actually worse than a crapping hippo.

Phryxis wrote:Well, not necessarily, but this guy is pretty much come out and said he's against the American government. There's a whole debate about "is America the government or the people" but at the end of the day, it's not all that salient. We have a process for change, and this guy is trying to circumvent it. We have laws on information control, and this guy is trying to actively circumvent them.

Also, I say "US" only because that's his obvious preferred target. I don't think he particularly cares who he hurts, so long as he hurts somebody "bigger than him." He's pathological, and his pathology should never be confused with genuine insight or real concern for humanity.

Looking at both his statements and his actions, he's against government, not just the US government. Well, he's against the shadowy forces within government that get their way by keeping their actions secret from the rest of us. Who will be rendered powerless because government will have to control its communications more closely.

Which makes no sense, but doesn't really produce a specifically anti-US bias.

Well, it's possible, but as I understand US law, at least, if somebody with a security clearance leaks a document, it's on them. It can then be published by whomever they leak it to, it's still on them, not the publisher.

If it didn't work that way, I tend to think this guy would be in jail already.

Australia is looking into how they might arrest him. I think that's probably the approach preferred by everyone, given he's an Australian citizen, so it'll all be a lot neater. Unfortunately to this point he's only released a couple of Australian documents.

I hadn't heard that, so I hadn't considered it. The spin I read was that Plame was no longer an operative, and her status was of dubious secrecy anyway. If that's not true... I don't know.

But, if we assume that it did lead to deaths of our allies, and that it can be proven that Libby was responsible, then yes...

Well, there's no doubt Libby was involved, in that he was convicted of obstructing justice in providing information on the actual source of the leak. There's little doubt that the leak came through Cheney and Rove.

As to whether it blew her cover, well it did, the claims that she wasn't 'really' undercover was spin. It resulted in the CIA having to shut down her front employer, and outed a whole lot of other people working at that same organisation. Whether or not it actually got anyone killed is another question, I only know of that because of an interview she gave recently, in the film they show people getting killed as the result of her outing, and the interviewer asked if anyone actually died as result - she claimed she couldn't comment for security reasons. Which likely means no-one died and the film was just making things more dramatic, but still...

The only caveat I'd add is that these are very senior people. It's actually somewhat "their job" to make decisions on subjects like this, and if they feel it's acceptable for people to get killed, that's part of their job description. You get into all sorts of weirdness if you don't allow for that. If the President announces that we're going to attack Fallujah (for example) one might say that makes the task harder and costs US lives, but it's also in the President's power to make that sort of announcement.

Sure, lives will be lost in advancing the nation's interests, and keeping other people alive. But there is a difference between ordering a military action, and spitefully leaking information because someone's husband wrote a report that you didn't like the sound of. The protection given to those in power should only extend to the actions they undertake as part of their duties, it shouldn't extend to revealing secret information to spite people who are have published a report that disagrees with administration policy.

Bottom line, I'm all about proof and clearcut boundaries. If there are clear rules, the rules were broken, the action constitutes treason, then I'm in favor of execution. If it's muddy, like did Libby do it, was he authorized by somebody else to do it who had the ability to make that authorization, etc. etc. etc. then not as much. But if it's clearcut that Libby acted on his own, knowing it was a treasonous offense, then yes, he should be executed.

It wasn't Libby, he was convicted of obstruction of justice, because he was covering for Cheney and/or Rove. I personally wouldn't be alright with any of them receiving death, I think like everything the response needs to be proportionate - and I don't think Cheney/Rove's leaks have been anywhere near that level. Assange has certainly done a lot more than they did, but I still think it falls a long way short of death.

But leaking documents like the key infrastructure sites, that certainly needs jail.

Yes it is, but it's also not really necessary to have sensitive information involved in doing so. You don't need to have specific GPS coordinates, names, dates, etc. to convey the horrors of war, or the complications of conducting peacekeeping operations.

Sure, so you'd be alright with something like the video feed from the helicopter firing on those kids getting leaked?

This somewhat comes back to the question of whether WikiLeaks is about spreading truth, or it's about undermining governments. It seems to have been stated pretty clearly that it's about the latter.

It's certainly doing that latter. I said from the start that leaks are a good and important part of a democratic society, but what should and shouldn't be leaked is a difficult matter, and needs someone with better judgement than Assange. Unfortunately the traditional media has become so spineless they're not much of an alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hemingway wrote:If we're talking about the States' involvement in Iraq, that's not a peacekeeping operation, it's being a belligerent. However, I don't know if a belligerent can then take on a peacekeeping role afterwords. Seems a little dodgy to me, though: "we conquered you, now we're keeping the peace here". If we're not talking about Iraq, disregard this comment.

Sure you can. Keeping the peace is keeping the peace, whether you were invited by the nation, or whether you conquered it. It's a lot harder in the latter case, but it is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:Only if you have ties to the CIA and have received funding from them

You mean you're not funded by the CIA? Dude you're missing out.

I hope you're at least invited to the Chrismas party.

Phryxis wrote:
The real question is why "leak" it? I think that virtually everyone in this thread is coming to the same conclusion, which is that Assange is not a "whistleblower" he's just a vindictive little clown.

His goal is not to help the people, it's to hurt the governments.

Absolutely.

I regard Assange with about as much respect as I would any anti-government activist.

But leaking documents like the key infrastructure sites, that certainly needs jail.

It depends on what context you're asking in as well.

If you're talking about "by today's standards" then I agree, jail is what we do, if that.

I was saying I think people should be executed because I think our standards have slipped. I think it would be fairly unprecedented, but I think it sends a message that is necessary, and I think it's also legally supportable. The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about.

It's really insane to me to think of what sort of people these have to be leaking this stuff. I'm a pretty anti-authoritarian person, I don't like being told what to do, I don't like people trying to put themselves "above" me, and I have almost nothing for contempt for our elected officials... But even I recognize that human society is built on cooperation, compliance, and respect for the systems and structures that make our exceedingly comfortable existance possible. For somebody to not get that bespeaks a level of social dysfunction or immaturity that is hard to process, especially given how socially dysfunctional and immature I know I am.

Phryxis wrote: The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about

Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?

As for the Pfc that downloaded the files, its been well established that he is under military law and that's totally reasonable. I want you to answer the first question with a simple yes or no answer based on the hard-line stance you have taken.

P.S. lol

Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?

No.

The word you're looking for is "advocating" and I'm not doing that. I've actually been pretty clear about that, I don't think he's actually broken any laws, much less broken laws that require death.

Additionally he's not an American citizen, and thus not subject to American laws regarding treason.

It should also be noted that the penalty for treason isn't always death.

US Code Title 18 2381 wrote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Phryxis wrote:

Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?

No.

The word you're looking for is "advocating" and I'm not doing that. I've actually been pretty clear about that, I don't think he's actually broken any laws, much less broken laws that require death.

Additionally he's not an American citizen, and thus not subject to American laws regarding treason.

I wonder if the world can argue that Assange has destabilized the world and therefore must be held accountable for his actions, breaking some sort of international law.

Of course, no American would ever stand for such a trial against themselves.

Phryxis wrote:

Are you abdicating for the execution of Julian Assange on the grounds that he has committed treason against the US government?

No.

The word you're looking for is "advocating" and I'm not doing that. I've actually been pretty clear about that, I don't think he's actually broken any laws, much less broken laws that require death.

Additionally he's not an American citizen, and thus not subject to American laws regarding treason.

Phryxis wrote:It depends on what context you're asking in as well.

If you're talking about "by today's standards" then I agree, jail is what we do, if that.

I was saying I think people should be executed because I think our standards have slipped.

Standards are looser, yes. I think this is really an acknowledgement that we are much more powerful, and much stable than we've ever been. Leaking these documents can't actually bring down industry, or destroy trade routes.

I think it would be fairly unprecedented, but I think it sends a message that is necessary, and I think it's also legally supportable. The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about.

Sure, but exactly what's needed to show that this isn't a joke may not be death. Despite the history of treason, what we're looking at here is basically a white collar crime committed by a goofball pseudo-intellectual. 10 years in max is a serious penalty that will resonate among those like him.

It's really insane to me to think of what sort of people these have to be leaking this stuff. I'm a pretty anti-authoritarian person, I don't like being told what to do, I don't like people trying to put themselves "above" me, and I have almost nothing for contempt for our elected officials... But even I recognize that human society is built on cooperation, compliance, and respect for the systems and structures that make our exceedingly comfortable existance possible. For somebody to not get that bespeaks a level of social dysfunction or immaturity that is hard to process, especially given how socially dysfunctional and immature I know I am.

If you believe, as Assange does, that those running the government are not doing so for our benefit, it makes a lot more sense. How anyone can reach the point where they believe that the malevolent forces inside government are so great that they dominate the benevolent elements is beyond my comprehension, though.

Phryxis wrote:...especially given how socially dysfunctional and immature I know I am.

You never seemed that way here.

Moving on.

The only thing I am getting out of this story is Julian Assange. I do not care about that guy, and I certainly don't consider him a hero.

Julian Assange, Julian Assange, Julian Assange, TSA, Sarah Palin... Julian Assange.

I'll be looking forward to the end of this guys influence.

In terms of the folks who are responsible for stealing the documents in one way or another, they should and probably will get the shorter end of the stick on this deal. Julian Assange, Julian Assange, Julian Assange, Sarah Palin... TSA.

sebster wrote:
If you believe, as Assange does, that those running the government are not doing so for our benefit, it makes a lot more sense. How anyone can reach the point where they believe that the malevolent forces inside government are so great that they dominate the benevolent elements is beyond my comprehension, though.

I don't think its that difficult of an idea. I think that, in general, you'll find a lot of people that don't consider the government to be benevolent. Indeed, I generally take that position. However, the fact that something isn't benevolent does not indicate that it is malevolent. That is unless one is of the opinion that there is no space between the two concepts, meaning that anything that isn't good is inherently bad.

Given that, the real issue is how Assange came to adopt a sort of black and white world view. Given that quite a few middle class people adopt dogmatic beliefs (I'm think of the many Objectivists in America) during their youth, it is at the very least not surprising, if still inexplicable with respect to the limits of this format.

Some pretty good questions from the host.

dogma wrote:I don't think its that difficult of an idea. I think that, in general, you'll find a lot of people that don't consider the government to be benevolent. Indeed, I generally take that position. However, the fact that something isn't benevolent does not indicate that it is malevolent. That is unless one is of the opinion that there is no space between the two concepts, meaning that anything that isn't good is inherently bad.

Oh, I certainly know that it isn't that common. And don't get me wrong, I don't believe the people working in government are predominantly benevolent or anything, but in most developed countries the structures are in place that result in a government that is benevolent.

There comes a point where I just don't understand how people could fail to recognise that. I mean, you just have to look at the modern world and the living standards provided and know government is a huge part of that, and then consider places where government is disfunctional, and what living standards are like there.

Given that, the real issue is how Assange came to adopt a sort of black and white world view. Given that quite a few middle class people adopt dogmatic beliefs (I'm think of the many Objectivists in America) during their youth, it is at the very least not surprising, if still inexplicable with respect to the limits of this format.

In every graduate class there'll be a few who never quite grow up.

Wrexasaur wrote:Some pretty good questions from the host.

I stopped aboput halfway through but everything up to that point was "no, Wikileaks is awesome". The closest to anything negative would be the questions from the host which the guests would than disagree and heap praise Wikileaks again for being so awesome. I didn't find either guest all that credible.

Ahtman wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Some pretty good questions from the host.

I stopped aboput halfway through but everything up to that point was "no, Wikileaks is awesome". The closest to anything negative would be the questions from the host which the guests would than disagree and heap praise Wikileaks again for being so awesome. I didn't find either guest all that credible.

Should have watched the whole thing. They brought up good points and the guy hosting the show was very objective. Presented arguments for and against Wikileaks. The resounding point to me was that modern media isn't any good at actually running news about the truth or whats really going on....if they did then Wikileaks would never have come about. The whole protection of confidentiality thing is a really good point.