|
On July 26 2010 08:44 ggrrg wrote:Two things are sure about this: - There is a lot of interesting information in there - There are a lot of very pissed off people right now Well, I'll take a look. Let's see if I'm lucky enough to find an interesting one :p Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 08:38 Khol wrote:
I'm going to dedicate myself to reading a lot of this. Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure it will take about 20 billion nano seconds to load, but I have time. You really had to say " 20 billion nano seconds"?.... saying 20 seconds would have been just fine...
Webpages load in nanoseconds!! Powered by hamsters on speed. ;]]
|
|
|
Whats your point? Assange is not an American, so his actions are not treason, illegal or unethical in anyway.
Reuters was one of the few news agencies that refused to call Al Qaeda or the Talibans as terrorists. When asked, they explained "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
In parts of the Arab world, killing Americans are acts of heroism.
|
He has adressed the issues you raise from the outset. His response to the allegation was quite eloquent and if you don't bother to consider his arguments then that's on you. The information is months old and the documents have been carefully redacted (self-censorship) to blot out information that would directly threaten the lives of the occupiers and their operatives.
"In an interview with NBC News on Wednesday, Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks was studying what he called “rumors” that the documents posted on its Web site include the names of informants. He also said that the organization had relied in part on the level of classification given to the reports by the American military and said, “If there are those names there, and they are at risk, this would be because of a misclassification by the U.S. military itself.”"
"For the past several decades, there has been an informal understanding between the reporters who uncovered newsworthy secrets and the government intelligence agencies, which tried to keep them from public view.
We would tell senior officials what we’d learned. And they would point out any unforeseen consequences that might arise from publication, such as the death of an American informant. Ultimately, the call on what appeared rested with editors. But it was a decision informed by more than our own guesswork."
This is propaganda journalism. Anyone who knows anything about the American media knows that the editors who get promoted are the ones who are the most careful [in relation to government]. Combine that with intimate links with the intelligence agencies and you create a brand of journalism that is no longer independent from government. By the way, governments always make the claim that keeping interesting revelations secret is somehow vital to national security.
If it's true that you can't fight a war without breaking a few eggs, then perhaps it's also true that you can't engage in real journalism without breaking a few eggs either.
If you're so concerned about the loss of human life then you might consider campaining for the swift end to the occupation. The islamist fighters aren't going to run out of opium money or recruits anytime soon. Even if the US 'wins' the war the prospects for the Afgan people are rather grim because the US has put an extremely weak and corrupt government in place, not to mention the fact that the non-ismamist mass murderers haven't been removed from the equasion, the opposite is the case. These warlords are as brutal as the Taliban and the Americans are considered to be worse by many... not because they have cooky barbarian laws, but because they fail to provide the population with the most basic protection. If it weren't for people like Assange we'd be virtually completely reliant on the US government statements for accurate information about the entire operation. I hardly think that that would be a good state of affairs.
If your assumption is that you are 'the good guys' then I certainly understand your position. You're mistaken however. The only good guys in Afganistan are the ones who don't make a living killing men, women and children.
How much money and lives are this quest really worth to the American people? War isn't free you know. Sooner or later you'll all have to pay for the crimes of your government, literally. Have fun cutting social programs and further increasing the rediculously high inequality in you country.
|
On August 01 2010 13:55 dybydx wrote:Whats your point? Assange is not an American, so his actions are not treason, illegal or unethical in anyway. Reuters was one of the few news agencies that refused to call Al Qaeda or the Talibans as terrorists. When asked, they explained "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In parts of the Arab world, killing Americans are acts of heroism.
Yes, well, too many people believe killing to be a cleansing affair. If I were Iraqi or Afgan I'd probably be fighting the Americans as well, but certainly not because it's in any way a good idea. It's just very hard not to hate the people who dedicate themselves to making an already tough situation into pure hell for you and your people.
The combined civilian death toll estimates hardly ever get mentioned in the US media and that's partly because it's very well understood that these people's lives are never the issue in war. You can talk about them to rally support for starting a war, but once their blood is on American hands the best that can be done is mentioning a selection of horror stories, presented as if they are unfortunate isolated incidents. Government always gets the benifit of any doubt, even when that doubt isn't well founded. TT
|
On August 01 2010 13:55 dybydx wrote:Whats your point? Assange is not an American, so his actions are not treason, illegal or unethical in anyway. Reuters was one of the few news agencies that refused to call Al Qaeda or the Talibans as terrorists. When asked, they explained "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In parts of the Arab world, killing Americans are acts of heroism.
You jump to conclusions. I realize Assange isn't American and therefor not subject to treason. The ethicality is debatable but I'm not debating that or any other point.
My point is: Assange takes credit for releasing documents but unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences that arise as a result of his actions speak to the measure of the man. I haven't made any judgment toward him being right or wrong.
Out of curiosity, what does Reuters call people who blow up buildings? How does it define a terrorist?
Aside from the obvious answer,"Americans". What is Reuters view?
|
@SilverLeague,
How did he not claim responsibility? If his actions did in fact break laws in Australia, he is still subject to be arrested.
Reuters refer to those "terrorists" as "suicide bombers" or "attackers". The only time they refer to them as terrorist or committing an acts of terror is when they quote another person speaking, like Bush.
|
Who is more responsible, Assange for releasing the information, or the USA for having the war in the first place? The USA is putting people in danger. They try to shield people by information secrecy. But that same secrecy hurts the flow of information to the actual people of the USA, which they rightfully should know (death tolls, primarily, as that is where the emotion and ethics is vested on it seems). What Assange is doing is making the trade off, even being careful to a certain extend with sensitive information, but USA's army is first in line of responsibility.
|
I don't find anything responsible in releasing data, that compromise our secret agent's identity. Maybe owner of wikileaks doesn't care about soldiers' life, but it's utterly stupid to risk someone's life and career by putting that kind of information in public.
|
On August 01 2010 16:39 dybydx wrote:
@SilverLeague,
How did he not claim responsibility? If his actions did in fact break laws in Australia, he is still subject to be arrested.
Reuters refer to those "terrorists" as "suicide bombers" or "attackers". The only time they refer to them as terrorist or committing an acts of terror is when they quote another person speaking, like Bush.
Assange knew peoples' lives might be at risk and thus the documents were redacted with a fine tooth comb. I would have respect for him if he said,"If a few eggs need to be broken for journalistic integrity, so be it". Instead there is this:
"In an interview with NBC News on Wednesday, Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks was studying what he called “rumors” that the documents posted on its Web site include the names of informants. He also said that the organization had relied in part on the level of classification given to the reports by the American military and said, “If there are those names there, and they are at risk, this would be because of a misclassification by the U.S. military itself.”"
I considered the merit of his argument but what he basically says is,"Not my fault". Even if the documents don't contain life threatening information, it's not a stretch to see the Taliban acting on vague or imagined information to promote some propaganda. Not much unlike from what the U.S. has done in recent memory.
I have no problems that he released the documents as it gives insight into the war. However, he needs to man up and own his actions and accept the consequences.
By the way, what is Reuters' definition of a terrorist?
|
@SilverLeague,
1. Even if those informants got killed, Assange bears no guilt for their deaths. The Afghan warlords target anyone giving intel to the US same way the US target anyone giving intel to them. If you are a participant in the conflict, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword".
2. Reuter do not use the term terrorist or terrorism except when quoting someone else. If there is a bomb blowing up in NYC, they report "Bomb attack in NYC" or "Group XYZ claims responsibility for NYC Bombing".
P.S.
The term terrorist when used in by the press or by the gov is often politically motivated. The CIA sponsored many programs and carried out many operations which if done by another government or entity, the US would have called it terrorism anyways.
|
On August 01 2010 18:25 dybydx wrote:
@SilverLeague,
1. Even if those informants got killed, Assange bears no guilt for their deaths. The Afghan warlords target anyone giving intel to the US same way the US target anyone giving intel to them. If you are a participant in the conflict, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword".
2. Reuter do not use the term terrorist or terrorism except when quoting someone else. If there is a bomb blowing up in NYC, they report "Bomb attack in NYC" or "Group XYZ claims responsibility for NYC Bombing".
P.S.
The term terrorist when used in by the press or by the gov is often politically motivated. The CIA sponsored many programs and carried out many operations which if done by another government or entity, the US would have called it terrorism anyways.
Assange may bear no guilt but that does not preclude him from bearing responsibility - legal obligations aside. You needn't be an active participant in the conflict to be targeted. I imagine being a family or friend is enough to be used as leverage.
Has Reuters expunged terrorist from its vocabulary and thus from its vernacular?
|
@SilverLeague,
1. Well, of course he bear responsibility for his own actions, regardless if it was right or wrong. But to attribute the death of informants or their family to Assange alone would be ridiculous. The informants themselves should bear responsibility for THEIR own actions too!
2. The only time when Reuters use the term terrorist is when quoting someone directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
On August 01 2010 19:15 dybydx wrote:
@SilverLeague,
1. Well, of course he bear responsibility for his own actions, regardless if it was right or wrong. But to attribute the death of informants or their family to Assange alone would be ridiculous. The informants themselves should bear responsibility for THEIR own actions too!
2. The only time when Reuters use the term terrorist is when quoting someone directly or indirectly.
Yes, exactly the point. His actions also have consequences. However, Assagne lays claim to his actions but divorces himself from the consequences when he states, “If there are those names there, and they are at risk, this would be because of a misclassification by the U.S. military itself.” In doing so, he puts responsibility of consequence squarely at the feet of U.S. military. Of course he is not the sole bearer of responsibility. The degree of responsibility each is accountable for I leave to another debate.
Asked of Reuters, "What's terrorism?"
In respsonse, "A term used when quoting others that have used the term". Humorous TBH. Probably not Reuters official answer but that's the impression I get from your responses.
|
On August 03 2010 10:18 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2010 19:15 dybydx wrote:
@SilverLeague,
1. Well, of course he bear responsibility for his own actions, regardless if it was right or wrong. But to attribute the death of informants or their family to Assange alone would be ridiculous. The informants themselves should bear responsibility for THEIR own actions too!
2. The only time when Reuters use the term terrorist is when quoting someone directly or indirectly. Yes, exactly the point. His actions also have consequences. However, Assagne lays claim to his actions but divorces himself from the consequences when he states, “If there are those names there, and they are at risk, this would be because of a misclassification by the U.S. military itself.” In doing so, he puts responsibility of consequence squarely at the feet of U.S. military. Of course he is not the sole bearer of responsibility. The degree of responsibility each is accountable for I leave to another debate. Asked of Reuters, "What's terrorism?" In respsonse, "A term used when quoting others that have used the term". Humorous TBH. Probably not Reuters official answer but that's the impression I get from your responses.
Here is a short summary of the reuters terrorist thing.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/reuters.asp
And a little here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#Criticism_and_controversy
|
- Number of lives Wikileaks might have put in danger: a few dozen
- Number of lives Wikileaks saves by helping end a war: many thousands
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude they're doing more good than bad.
|
But is it actually going to end the war? I find that unlikely.
|
Someone is going to be crucified for this leak... >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
