Hero or Villain?Follow

When the hell did we declare war on Wikileaks, or designate it a criminal/terrorist organization? Is Julian Assange now Cobra Commander?

Tough call, we usually hear about civilians killed in drone strikes and diplomatic cables, but not about the Afghani translators that were exposed and later killed. I'd call him a hero if he'd been more selective but to unleash 100's of thousands of documents is irresponsible. Well intentioned idiot.

Yeah, I think the indiscriminate dumping of documents was dumb, in addition to being illegal. There are processes and protections in place for actual whistle blowers - if he was aware of a specific thing that was wrong, and knew exactly where the stuff to prove it was located and accessed only that, I'd be a lot more willing to jump in and defend him. As it was, most of the stuff he leaked was inter-office sniping and generic insults to other countries and people. Highly embarrassing, but nothing that 95% of offices, government or otherwise, around the world don't also do.

I am annoyed they let him sit around in prison for a couple years while they decided to charge him. That's against due process and the right to a speedy trial. But as lolgaxe will probably tell us, those are also things you pretty much expected to give up when you join the military.

If you're going to try to be a spy, don't be dumb about it. Like the CIA guy in Russia. WTF dude.

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 12:41pm by Catwho

Villain, obviously. Not because of what he did, but because of the role he chose. You choose to become something other than a normal citizen when you enlist in the US military. Part of that is the implicit understanding that you'll have to do things you either don't like or disagree with because they are ordered by those higher in the hierarchy. Discussing the actions without that context becomes meaningless. Or to put it more succinctly:

"You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."

We're all bad liberals

I agree. I wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page first though.

Holy **** gbaji just agreed with most of the forum

Yeah, if he had actually been intelligent about this - choosing to release all the ********* pointlessly classified documents to prove a point, choosing to release documents to whistleblow on war crimes, etc. - I'd be on his side.

As it is now, I think he's a dumbass. But that's about as far as it goes, for me. I really, really don't like a lot of the political maneuvers around his trial (refusal to publish court documents, even though they aren't classified, refusal to allow his political intentions as a whistle blower to be introduced at his trial, without even disclosing the reasons why, etc.)

Last I checked, motive was a relevant in the justice system. Particularly when one of the charges against him is completely dependent on his motives, which the prosecution needs to prove for him to get a life sentence. I just can't see the "fair" in "fair trial" when a judge decides that evidence against him and his motives can be introduced, but evidence to prove his motives for the better cannot be.

Sure, it's possible there's a really good reason that they've bared discussion there. But with an arbitrary refusal to publish court documents, it's just shady as hell.

(For anyone not following the case: journalists aren't barred from the trial, and many of those orders will need to be read outloud in court. So the only reason not to publish them is to make it more difficult for journalists to report on the trial). Normally, journalists would read extensive briefings from the prosecution, defense, and judge before a trial began. Would have access to all court documents and testimonies while it was proceeding. And would have access to the end reports of the judge when the trial ended. These fully explain all decisions to allow, refuse, etc. the admission of evidence, lines of questioning, etc.

It's the bedrock of court reporting. And it's mandatory for courts to publish those documents in the civilian court system. The only acceptable reason to keep back a document is for classified reasons, and even then classified documents often are not admissible in courts for the same reason.

I thought he pled guilty, but that the plea bargains were later rejected by the prosecution, so now he's being prosecuted for all the charges? I've also only seen the maximum penalty he's facing as life?

I
Am a man?

Am I a woman?

I don't know, so I guess I'll have to give all these classified files to wiki-leaks.


I'd buy it.

The gender neutral outdoor toilet of course.

If one must eat the evidence, presumably one must also **** the evidence.

My view is that he's neither. He's just some guy.

Not a particularly compelling argument, I'll grant you.



Meaningless, and not just because it's a tautology.



Increasingly it isn't, and it depends on the offence to what degree this is true, if at all. It might be completely irrelevant. If it's been barred then presumably that's the case.



I'm sure those procedures will be very useful in exposing endemic structural corruption. Like a fire alarm that's on fire.



An anarchist goes to whatever shop they please, surely. I'm not sure why you've chosen an oath to the US government as the cardinal virtue, some deeply structuralist ethics I suppose? Pass.