5 ms·

"However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage" "Espionage" like publishing warcrimes. "I consider setting up a website purel

"However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage" "Espionage" like publishing warcrimes. "I consider setting up a website purely designed to encourage leaking of potentially classified information and assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than any other criminal conspiracy" Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally justified that private citizens have to enforce it. As for "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If anything they are exposing crimes. "being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did" Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose warcrimes? "Assange is an activist, not a journalist. He should not be treated as such" Activists, journalists, and regular citizens should all be treated the same. "is directly related to his own actions (e.g., fleeing to an Embassy)." Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to send him to the US.

bsimpson 5y ago
Spelling like a 9 year old who just discovered an Internet chat room undercuts your credibility, as does attacking the person you're replying to. Your question is abhorrently tasteless and irrelevant, which is about all I can say without violating the forum guidelines myself.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  I am a non-native english speaker typing on a phone without a spellchecher. I also have dislexia. If you have some specific complaints then please do point them out, I would love to improve. I am not sure why you think that this is the case given that the person that I am replying to literally worked for an organisation made for killing people and with a known record of torture and warcrimes. Would you welcome a proud ISIS fighter? I would not. If they killed nobody then they just can say so. I just do not wish to talk to people who murdered people in illegal invasions.
bladegash 5y ago
"Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to send him to the US." If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for breaking laws that we disagree with. "Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally justified that private citizens have to 3nforce it. As for "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If anything they are exposing crimes." There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and the breadth of information crossed a line between what was necessary for informing the public, versus damaging to the diplomatic relations and ability to conduct diplomacy with much of the rest of the world. "Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose warcrimes?" Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to provide your perspective and add to the discussion.
- klibertp 5y ago
  > If only we could all flee Tell that to Snowden. > There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and Sorry, I have to: that's just, like, your opinion man. Have you ever thought that you might be wrong on this? How about the state stops doing the things they need to keep secret? You may call it naive, but some will call it being just, you know?
  - bladegash 5y ago
    Fortunately you and I do not individually make that decision. Society does and it has deemed, through democratically elected leaders and participation in a social contract that there is a case to be made to state secrets.
    - GordonS 5y ago
      I accept that sometimes information cannot be made public for reasons of national security, but that get out clause seems to be very over-used. How many members of Western society do you think would agree that war crimes should be routinely covered up? I'd guess very, very few.
    - 5y ago

bsimpson 5y ago

Spelling like a 9 year old who just discovered an Internet chat room undercuts your credibility, as does attacking the person you're replying to. Your question is abhorrently tasteless and irrelevant, which is about all I can say without violating the forum guidelines myself.

ttybird2 5y ago
I am a non-native english speaker typing on a phone without a spellchecher. I also have dislexia. If you have some specific complaints then please do point them out, I would love to improve. I am not sure why you think that this is the case given that the person that I am replying to literally worked for an organisation made for killing people and with a known record of torture and warcrimes. Would you welcome a proud ISIS fighter? I would not. If they killed nobody then they just can say so. I just do not wish to talk to people who murdered people in illegal invasions.

bladegash 5y ago

"Yet given how the events turned out it seems that he was right. He was hiding in the embassy in fear that they would try to send him to the US." If only we could all flee when faced with consequences for breaking laws that we disagree with. "Transparency is a government duty. It is a shame but totally justified that private citizens have to 3nforce it. As for "criminal", sounds like yet another victimless crime. If anything they are exposing crimes." There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and the breadth of information crossed a line between what was necessary for informing the public, versus damaging to the diplomatic relations and ability to conduct diplomacy with much of the rest of the world. "Thank you for disclosing that. How many people did you kill (directly or indirectly) and why didn't you try to expose warcrimes?" Oh, goodness. Thanks for adding to taking the time to provide your perspective and add to the discussion.

klibertp 5y ago
> If only we could all flee Tell that to Snowden. > There are absolutely reasons for state secrecy and Sorry, I have to: that's just, like, your opinion man. Have you ever thought that you might be wrong on this? How about the state stops doing the things they need to keep secret? You may call it naive, but some will call it being just, you know?
- bladegash 5y ago
  Fortunately you and I do not individually make that decision. Society does and it has deemed, through democratically elected leaders and participation in a social contract that there is a case to be made to state secrets.
  - GordonS 5y ago
    I accept that sometimes information cannot be made public for reasons of national security, but that get out clause seems to be very over-used. How many members of Western society do you think would agree that war crimes should be routinely covered up? I'd guess very, very few.
  - 5y ago