Is Assange a force for good or chaos?

[pnwmom]

Just imagine that D-Day is only weeks away.

Months of secrecy and disinformation have succeeded in confusing the Germans about when or where the inevitable invasion will come.

Then an anarchist activist, insisting that in a democracy everyone has the right to know everything, publishes the secret plans for Operation Overlord.

Inconceivable then, but today that is precisely what WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, would do in a similar situation.

SNIP

He says that of the 90,000 documents released this week, WikiLeaks looked at only 2,000 of them.

If that's the case, then he couldn't possibly have known how much information which could endanger U.S. and British soldiers they contained.

SNIP

Pressed on whether his actions risk harming the innocent - soldiers on active service for example - he says, in a scary echo of the kind of the language used by the military that he despises, that 'collateral damage' is inevitable, and concedes that WikiLeaks might end up with 'blood on our hands'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297917/Is-Wikileaks-boss-Julian-Assange-force-good-chaos.html#ixzz17JfATw2Q

[Skittles]

1. definitely somewhere in-between

[Subdivisions]

2. Nice. More analysis of Assange, rather than the data. n/t

[pnwmom]

4. I'm not going near it. I have no interest in empowering Assange. n/t

[Forkboy]

6. No shit.

[JDPriestly]

17. You can safely read the items released in the Guardian, I think.

That is what I am doing. They do not print things that could hurt someone.

[EFerrari]

31. How do you strike a blow at Assange by keeping yourself in ignorance?

What kind of magic is that?

[xTx]

35. Wait, chaos isn't good? nt

[Hissyspit]

3. D-Day is not only weeks away.

Irrelevent rhetorical analogy.

And good is not the opposite of chaos necessarily.

[BlueMTexpat]

18. Exactly ... yet another "false equivalency" ...

the invasion has ALREADY taken place and we have already been conquered, after surrendering without even being able to put up a fight.

"... Not with a bang, but a whimper." http://www.artofeurope.com/eliot/eli2.htm

[Forkboy]

5. He's like the Super Twins have activated into the shape of a moral conundrum!

Just imagine that war in Iraq is days away. Months of secrecy and disinformation have succeeded in confusing Iraq about where and when the inevitable invasion will come.

Then an "anarchist" (Does anyone older than Johnny Rotten still fall for this loaded word?) activist, insisting that in a democracy everyone has the right to know everything, publishes the secret plans for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Inconceivable then, but today that is precisely what could have prevented almost a million dead people.

[DearAbby]

7. US grew sloppy

nice and comfy thinking they owned everything, with no checks or balances. Grew Greedy on the fat. The reaction alone proves to me they are afraid some really shady dealings would be exposed. They should have covered their flanks, guarded the back doors, checked those (T's) dotted those (i's). BEEN LEGAL and honest, you know what I grew up believing. The USA were the Good guys, the ones in the white hats.

[TexasObserver]

8. OMG! It's terrible!

Your attempts to continue pushing fearmongering instead of rational thought regarding Wikileaks, that is.

Since you're worried about D-Day, why don't you go read what Ike said about the dangerous military industrial complex that was taking over 50 years ago? If you'd spend more time reading what Ike said and less time listening to your own fears on this topic, you'd be miles ahead.

[JDPriestly]

9. That is the problem of our government. How does it protect its secrets?

Apparently it did not do a good job of it. But our government has no one to blame but itself. If the US could get the diplomatic correspondence of other countries, don't think for a minute it wouldn't take them.

My suggestions are that our government be more discerning in determining what really is a secret. Then it should really protect the things that are, as you describe them vital to our safety and just let the press have things that aren't so important if the press wants it. That would lessen the amount of information, the number of documents (electronic or hard copies) that must be protected.

Assange is just a reporter. He just took this information and passed it on because he could. He may have his ideological grounds for doing it. He may believe, for example, in absolute transparency.

The real problem is not Assange but that this information was so easily accessible. We do not know who obtained it from our government -- could have been someone in our state department. Maybe a mole from the Bush administration? Could have been a foreign country? The Russians and the Chinese are quite good with computers. I'd like to know in what country the computers that the US diplomatic corps uses are made. There could be a problem there.

Maybe some member of our diplomatic corps lost a computer or maybe just left a computer in a hotel room in Beirut or Kabul for a few hours. Doesn't take much to download everything from a computer, I suppose.

Whether Assange is a force for good or bad is not the question in my opinion. It is whether our government's excessive secrecy is actually endangering our country. Why were labeling gossip about Berlusconi's shocking personal behavior as a secret. It's sort of confidential, but shouldn't our government be focused on keeping military information secret, not that sort of silly stuff? We might not want to advertise what we know about Berlusconi's private life. But it doesn't need to be protected to the same extent that some of the other information needs to be protected.

[Citizen Worker]

41. How can there be secrets in a democracy? The two are mutually exclusive.

[JDPriestly]

72. Troop movements, the locations of reserves of food and other

necessities like water, that sort of thing.

[ZombieHorde]

10. Are "good" and "chaos" mutually exclusive?

I like to think they can go together from time to time.

[krabigirl]

29. agreed.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. Considering the recent revelation that he will release

the encryption key to his 'insurance' file that supposedly contains all the diplomatic and military plans of the us that they had at the time of the files creation unredacted if he has to face the authorities, I'd say he is firmly on the side of Chaos

[Raine]

12. Possibly both ... good can come out of chaos

sometimes things have to be shaken up before there can be improvement.

[EFerrari]

13. People who focus on these fantasies about possible death and destruction

are avoiding with all their might the real death and destruction that Wikileaks has revealed.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

16. do you support assange's threat of possibly

releasing the full versions of all the U.S. documents received by WikiLeaks to date – including those that have been withheld from publication or have had names and details removed in order to protect the lives of spies, sources and soldiers?

[EFerrari]

23. I don't support breathless unfounded paranoid psycho drama

meant to distract from the substance of the leaks.

Do you support your government bombing women and children in Yemen and lying about it?

Do you support your government colluding with Sweden on rendition?

Do you support your government seeking to destabilize democratic governments in Bolivia and Honduras?

Do you support your government trying to hide the Pentagon's killing of journalists?

Do you support your government sending troops into Pakistan illegally?

Those things really did happen.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

26. Live in Norway so most of those questions are not valid for me.

And its not unfounded paranoid psycho drama

The 1.3-gigabyte file, distributed through file-sharing services this summer and protected with an unbreakable 256-bit encryption key, contains full versions of all the U.S. documents received by WikiLeaks to date – including those that have been withheld from publication or have had names and details removed in order to protect the lives of spies, sources and soldiers.

*snip*

Mr. Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens warned that if Mr. Assange were to be brought to trial on rape accusations he faces in Sweden, or for treason charges that have been suggested by U.S. politicians, he would release the encryption key. The tens of thousands of people who have downloaded the file would instantly have access to the names, addresses and details contained in the file.

[EFerrari]

28. Yes, it is psycho drama. Assange's lawyer's job is to defend him.

That is what he is doing.

You're in Norway. So, are you more concerned with what Assange may do in the future or about what the American government has already been shown to have done? Didn't part of your government spy on your citizens for the Americans?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

30. My concern is for innocents mostly, and assange/the lawyers threat is to me a large attack

on the lives of many people.

It might be an bluff admittedly, but the threat has been made

[EFerrari]

32. I don't think Wikileaks can compete with the American government

when it comes to endangering innocents.

The threat, if it can be called a threat, is not the lives of innocents. American politicians don't seem to mind those deaths very much. It must be something more near and dear to the hearts of the powerful, some corruption they don't want known or some business deal they care about.

[laughingliberal]

65. Yep. I support it 100%. nt

[JDPriestly]

22. Interesting, EFerrari.

Actually, had we had more information about what was going on in the Japanese government and had the Japanese known that we had that information, there might not have been a Pearl Harbor. Same for Germany. Had we had access to the German files before the war thanks to some Wikileak of that time, maybe we would have been better prepared for WWII.

So, the logic of the OP works both ways. Less secrecy on all sides might make war less likely in the first place. And, of course, if Assange can get access to the secret files of our diplomatic corps, he may be able to get those of other countries as well. Can you imagine how the world would change if none of the major powers had any secrets left?

We would either have a level playing field and no war or we would have one huge bang of a war as all countries with the capacity to attack let go and tried to be first to get at the others.

So far, I haven't heard that these files contain secrets about military plans. I don't think that is what was disclosed.

[EFerrari]

25. You can tell how militarized we are as a culture by what we fear --

as if military secrets were our most precious possession.

But yeah, worrying about theoretical deaths is a displacement, a way to avoid dealing with the deaths that Wikileaks has already "caused" us to know about by putting them in the realm of future tripping.

[JDPriestly]

71. Excellent observation.

[malaise]

39. 100% correct n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

48. these "fantasies" are no less real that Assange's fear of being

murdered by the US govt.

He was raised to think that people were out to get him.
This isn't something new.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

[EFerrari]

50. Right. Just because people SAY out loud and on camera

that you are a terrorist, should be apprehended or executed, you shouldn't take them seriously.

LOL

[Bluerthanblue]

58. do you idolize this man?

please consider this seriously.

I'm honestly interested in your response to this question.

I didn't claim that there aren't people who would love to harm Julian Assange.

YOU however, claim that the distinct possibility that innocent people could be injured or killed as a result of the fallout of Assange's choice to freely leak thousands upon thousands of documents that he has no legal right to possess is a "fantasy".

No "LOL" here EFerrari. Personally, jeopardizing the lives of others isn't something I take lightly- or consider a laughing matter.

I linked to an article in the New Yorker that gives quite abit of information about him. If you haven't read it, I encourage you to. You may learn something you don't already believe you know.

thanks.

[EFerrari]

76. I have a high regard for the rule of law and no respect at all

for media smears.
You are claiming the media doesn't have the right to commit journalism. Until they rescind the first amendmet, that's simply untrue. And yes, when you imagine people that may be killed by this release as a way to tar Wikileaks, that is a sadistic fantasy. There is no fact about Assange that changes that.

[tekisui]

52. The double think is very stong in this case.

Evidence of death, blood on the hands of powerful people. Innocents dead. Yet, authoritarians drone on about hypothetical deaths in a undetermined future.

Distraction, deflection and fear-mongering at its best.

[EFerrari]

56. Agreed. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

60. that's bullshit.

It is NOT "either" "or".

HELL YES- I'm outraged at the death and destruction that our government has wrought throughout this world. SOME of the documents that wikileaks has published gives evidence of the details of these atrocities.

Should they be used to hold those responsible accountable? ABSOLUTELY!

Does that somehow make the very REAL possibility that innocent people stand to be injured or killed as a result of the effects that releasing this information no less disturbing?

Is it impossible for one to understand and despise the deaths that have resulted at the hands of our country AND ALSO to be concerned and unwilling to simply dismiss the dangers that are likely to occur unless great care is taken by those who are choosing to release documents that contain information that can be used to target vulnerable people???

Obviously, you don't seem to think so.

Jesus, EFerarri, you and I have had our share of discussions over the years, and while we often don't agree I've always found you to be a person of reason. Someone who wasn't closed minded and willing to honestly consider other perspectives, but this particular issue is showing a much different side.

Maybe I've been mistaken, or I am completely mis-reading you.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

77. You might consider that Wikileaks has been much more careful

with the subjects of those releases than our government has. Wikileaks is not the entity being cavalier here. And when criticized for not being careful enough by Greenwald, for example, they changed their procedure to be more careful.

The possibility of harm coming to someone as a result of a Wikileaks release doesn't comport with their track record or with their past behavior. It is an obvious red herring.

Do we know how many people will be harmed or even killed today as a result of US foreign policy? Maybe someone should start an index: "People harmed by Wikileaks today / People harmed by US foreign policy today" to make that more graphic.

[Kalun D]

14. The Government

including the alphabet agencies, is a corporate cesspool

it needs to be exposed

that said I don't think Wikileaks is even real, I think it's a CIA front. What better way to catch real leakers and manufacture a reason to regulate the internet like they've been wanting to do since it's inception.

[Michigan-Arizona]

68. CIA front

I just this morning received a video from Brasscheck saying that very same thing.

[TorchTheWitch]

15. Wikileaks released 88,000 docs they didn't even look at?

And no one has a problem with this?

No one has a problem with Assange saying "collateral damage" is inevitable and concedes that Wikileaks might end up with "blood on our hands"? Yet Assange is holding back the most important and most devistating of truths the public should know about in his "insurance" file because he's that concerned about HIS blood.

Jesus Christ on a bicycle.


Edit: Fixed the math. I suck at math. Can't add 2+2 without a calculator.

[EFerrari]

20. Wikileaks was criticized for not redacting some names in the warlogs

so I don't know where you get, "no one has a problem with this". And in response, they are processing this last release even more carefully. So to say they are "holding back" is to overlook that the man hours it takes to process that much material. While they are being disrupted.

[TorchTheWitch]

24. I was referring to all the replies so far that didn't acknowledge it

Lots of other excuses but no one found it eye opening that all those docs were released - RELEASED - that they didn't even look at.

And you have no opinion either about Assange talking like Rumsfeld about "collateral damage" and the fact that what is released might kill people while Assange has held back the most important docs that the public should know about in his "insurance" file in order to protect HIS OWN blood? This doesn't strike you or anyone else as not only self-serving but appalling and contrary to his supposed belief that the public needs to know this stuff?

[EFerrari]

27. I have no reaction, no. Because imo, the full frontal smear is on

and I've seen it too many times to be swept up in it. I know that isn't a very satisfying answer but there it is. A this point, everything I read about this situation has to be checked three ways to Sunday for bullshit.

[TorchTheWitch]

47. which full frontal smear?

Assange is hardly the only person or entity being full frontally smeared. How interested are you in checking three ways to Sunday for bullshit concerning anyone other than Assange that is being full frontally smeared?

[EFerrari]

54. I tend to do that whenever the media goes into this mode.

Slow down and get careful. That's how I caught that the FBI had Ivins in Princeton at 5pm and also in Frederick at 4:30.

Now that you ask.

[charlie]

38. I haven't seen WikiLeaks admit they didn't look at them

Could be I missed it. What I have seen is that they used the military's classifications to flag documents for thorough review. 2000 of higher classification passed after review. 15,000 further docs were withheld.

[whatchamacallit]

19. For good

now please stfu!

[Forkboy]

21. What? And give up show business?

[yurbud]

33. if you believe that our government is keeping secrets mostly for our good, you've lived in a cave

for the last decade, or you are being profoundly dishonest.

[jobycom]

34. Maybe if someone had leaked the Nazi secrets in the 30s we wouldn't have needed D-Day.

I don't think he's a hero or a villain. He's just this guy. He released a lot of documents created by other people, leaked by other people, and revealing dark secrets of other people. If he was able to release them, then the people who really mattered anyway probably already had their hands on them.

Our government isn't mad that he's endangered anyone. If they can't keep secret documents secret better than that, then those documents were already known by the people we wanted to hide them from. Our government is mad that he embarrassed them, made them look bad in front of us--their employers. If my boss comes to me and says "Someone showed me this document proving you are embezzling from me," I'm not going to get away with it by condemning the person who found the proof. Yet that's exactly what our government (and others) is trying to do.

Assange should be held to the same laws as anyone else. If he broke any releasing the documents, or in other cases, he should be held accountable, assuming the nation with jurisdiction has an appropriate human rights record. But he shouldn't be persecuted or endangered, either. Of course, should and shouldn't won't really matter here, and he knew that before he got started. My focus isn't on him. It's on the documents and what they revealed. Even if he broke any laws, the appropriate people should have to answer for what the documents reveal. And that's exactly why they want to make him a supervillain and make people feel like traitors for even hearing about the documents.

[EFerrari]

36. Our government should be as answerable to the law as Julian Assange.

Instead, our lawmakers propose to rewrite the law so they can criminalize him while evading the law themselves.

[jobycom]

37. See, that's what I hate.

Took me three paragraphs to say that. You said it in two lines. :)

[EFerrari]

42. You did all the hard work.

:)

[nxylas]

61. Well, it wouldn't have been the Daily Mail, that's for sure

They were too busy writing editorials and articles telling us what a terribly decent chap Mr. Hitler was.

[leveymg]

40. Bad analogy. These are lower classified State Dept. cables, not Top Secret Pentagon files.

You don't make a convincing case. When challenged to defend particular statements or conclusions, you evade or refuse to answer. You're not credible.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Of course, this is just like giving away the plans for d-day.

p.s. chaos and good are not mutually exclusive.

[timtom]

44. Both.

The chaos comes from the collapse of an imperial structure built on fear, lies, and its own chaos.

The good is the light being shone on the corruption and duplicity of our "leaders."

The good is also the fact of one individual seemingly standing against the empire to good effect.

Whose side is Assange REALLY on?

I don't know. He could be part of a black ops to bring about total lockdown in America/the world.????

[geckosfeet]

45. He is a force for himself. But I am glad he is airing the deceptive duplicity

so common amongst our politicians and diplomats.

Why is it criminal for the truth to be known? I find it absurd that the broadcast media that feeds us steady diets of fantasy, lies and fiction recoils in faux patriotic horror when faced with reality.

What is more damaging to a society - being implicitly told that life is fantasy or being told the truth? Personally I find the truth much more useful, revealing and interesting.

[stray cat]

46. Is he really a force? He just posts info someone else steals with no analysis

[tekisui]

55. Somebody has to be willing to do it.

[laughingliberal]

64. +1 nt

[Odin2005]

49. Both.

[tekisui]

51. He's both! And, the fear mongering is to be expected.

That is what all of our bullshit wars are founded on. Fear and lies.

Wikileaks is a great service to wake people up. Your governments' do not care about you and do not value human life. It is a game of power for them.

[lunatica]

53. Assange is a catalyst

He makes change happen. What the world does to adjust to the change is up to them, not Assange. I personally think this is a great opportunity and that the worst thing that can happen is that the status quo remains in place because we're just too entrenched in it.

If what he's doing doesn't shake things up enough to create the opportunity for change, then nothing will.

[Karenina]

75. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Of course, the pathogens will create whatever chaos they can to protect themselves.

[seabeyond]

57. he is not the hero du makes him out to be. having posters of him looking off, all noble.

what a tweak to integrity this fiasco is.

[Bluerthanblue]

66. It is good

to hear you say this Seabeyond.

I exposing wrong is important. But there is a real hero-worship thing happening here which is downright frightening.

integrity is important.

:hi:

[originalpckelly]

59. The example presupposes we should solve our problems only after they begin.

The nations of the world could have done something about Hitler way before D-Day. Maybe if we had a world with a free flow of information, they would have seen him for the wolf he was. People like Hitler can only use lies to further their cause, because no sane person would walk into a chopper blade of their own free will.

[RadiationTherapy]

62. "To choose order over disorder or disorder over order

is to accept a trip composed of the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all creative trip composed of order and disorder." The Curse of Greyface and the Introduction of Negativism - Principia Discordia by Malaclypse the Younger KSC.



So, is Assange being creative or destructive?

[laughingliberal]

63. Funny. He offered to let State redact portions they felt would endanger lives. They blew him off.

All their hysterical cries of 'lives in danger' is just the panicking of a bunch of people who see their ability to lie to the people and gain support for policies which hurt us threatened.

[MilesColtrane]

67. deleted

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Assange is a force against evil.

The "evil" all too apparent in the leaked documents and the culture of "Daddy Knows Best" held by the bosses.

[TwilightGardener]

70. To his fans, secret/classified always equals nefarious. And many would not mind

seeing the United States damaged and brought to its knees. I'm surprised at the deep-seated hatred for our country that I've seen here the last few days.

[EFerrari]

79. You're conflating opposition to corruption with hatred for America. n/t

[sabrina 1]

73. He has stated that the goes after the bad guys, so I doubt he

would have revealed any information that would have helped Hitler.

As for chaos, what an odd questions. The U.S. has created real chaos around the world, killing and maiming million of people for decades now.

Do you have any idea of how this country is viewed OUTSIDE the U.S.? Probably not since our own media is pretty much under the control of the government.

People who torture and kill ARE the bad guys, especially when they do to for profit. I thought we had agreed about that during the Bush administration, had worked to solve the problem by electing Democrats?

America needs to wake up before it's way, way too late. People do not like having their citizens killed and/or tortured and we managed to torture the citizens of many, many countries, including Canada, Spain and Britain.

It is not being patriotic, despite what the Rightwing says, to defend your country when they are doing wrong. That's what the Germans did since you brought them up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. #1

[beforeyoureyes]

78. The truth will set you free

And, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

The system is built on a lie to serve the corporate overlords.

Assange is a HERO.