The motives of Wikileaks' Julian Assange

[BaalChatzaf]

Does anyone remember the Pentagon Papers?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Does anyone remember the Pentagon Papers? Or the outing of Valarie Plame? That last one did cost some lives.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

I agree, the NY Times is also guilty.

At least you're consistent -- on this point anyway.

One doesn't, for example, get the right to sell stolen property because someone else is guilty of the theft. If done by a foreign power this would be an act of war. Some pervert in a hat doesn't get immunity from releasing stolen secrets that will result in the loss of life because he calls himself a "journalist." I suppose the Rosenbergs' mistake was in handing the secrets they stole to Russia, instead of the Daily Worker.

Well. You call me an "absolutist fool" but then spew this absolute foolishness. Much of this information was indeed "stolen" -- by the US government. They were keeping us from knowing what we should know. Assange recovered it for us. But the broader issue here is whether or not this or that particular item should have remained secret for some reason. And that's the key word: reason. Something you seem completely unfamiliar with. The government should have only a very limited ability to keep things secret (e.g., military targets and locations during the actual operation -- but even this information should be released a short time after the operation), it should do it for very specific cases and reasons, otherwise we should know what they are doing and why.

Unlike your silly implication that I support absolute release of everything, I don't. I recognize that some things should be secret for a time. I haven't read what Assange released so I don't know whether some items might cross the line. But even if inappropriate things were published, I lay the primary blame at the feet of the US government, which should be operating on open principles of government, not authoritarianism. As I already said, if they were actually operating on principles of individual rights, then what Assange did would be universally condemned. But he's not universally condemned because people recognize that the US government is keeping too much information secret.

Shayne

[sjw]

Does anyone remember the Pentagon Papers? Or the outing of Valarie Plame? That last one did cost some lives.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Regarding Plame, it's only considered an outrage if the leak contradicts authoritarianism. Most of all people want authority figures to look up to. For many they function as a kind of substitute parent or God, making adults who never grew up feel secure in their immaturity.

Shayne

Edited November 29, 2010 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On Glenn Beck's show today he tied the founding of Wikileaks to money from George Soros. The Progressive's motive is chaos and anarchy, then nationalism and tyranny, at which point the Progressives will create a new world order – with them in charge, of course.

Peter,

I haven't seen that show yet (I will later tonight), but I had a feeling Soros money was involved. This perfectly fits the pattern of creating chaos, staging riots, getting people to start yelling, "Make it stop!" Then the folks in the wings with the "solution" appear. They get a popular sanction for taking power, then the secret police stuff starts and we all go under.

Actually, the secret police stuff has already started. If people think things like rendition under Bush was horrible (and it was), they ain't seen nothing yet. If this thing plays out to the Progressive's plans, we have a long dark road ahead. I have lived in a society where there was a real secret police picking up folks in the middle of the night. (Brazil during the military dictatorship.)

Michael

[sjw]

On Glenn Beck's show today he tied the founding of Wikileaks to money from George Soros. The Progressive's motive is chaos and anarchy, then nationalism and tyranny, at which point the Progressives will create a new world order – with them in charge, of course.

Peter,

I haven't seen that show yet (I will later tonight), but I had a feeling Soros money was involved. This perfectly fits the pattern of creating chaos, staging riots, getting people to start yelling, "Make it stop!" Then the folks in the wings with the "solution" appear. They get a popular sanction for taking power, then the secret police stuff starts and we all go under.

Actually, the secret police stuff has already started. If people think things like rendition under Bush was horrible (and it was), they ain't seen nothing yet. If this thing plays out to the Progressive's plans, we have a long dark road ahead. I have lived in a society where there was a real secret police picking up folks in the middle of the night. (Brazil during the military dictatorship.)

Michael

In case you didn't notice, it's already chaos and criminal activity running amok. The 2008 economic crisis and bailouts, the ObamaCare, the TSA, and countless criminal acts against innocent citizens by the judicial system.

This Soros conspiracy theory sounds silly to me. Is it verified? I doubt it. A quick google search turned up this: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011290032 . I'm sure more debunking will follow.

Anyway, the way to analyze these things is by reference to principles, not to conspiracy theories.

Shayne

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

I haven't seen that show yet (I will later tonight), but I had a feeling Soros money was involved.

end quote

Their world wide conspiracy amazes me too. Glenn does not think there is a Star Chamber or daily communications among the Progressives, but some sort of consensus is being reached among the traitor class.

On the lighter side, it is good to see Hilary squirm. Dick Morris saw her try to dig up dirt on the women Bill slept with to keep them quiet, and now she is going after the same dirt on foreign diplomats to black mail them. Why else would she want their credit card information?

“Does your wife know you went to a strip club with your new mistress, Mr Ambassador? Perhaps you might want to rethink your official position on President Obama’s proposal.”

Peter

[sjw]

Daniel Ellsberg on Democracy Now regarding the latest leaks:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/29/us_facing_global_diplomatic_crisis_following

Shayne

[Selene]

In case you didn't notice, it's already chaos and criminal activity running amok. The 2008 economic crisis and bailouts, the ObamaCare, the TSA, and countless criminal acts against innocent citizens by the judicial system.

Son:

You have no clue as to what a police state, "real chaos" and "criminal activity running amok" is really like.

Adam

Edited November 30, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Your argument is not convincing to me, but not because I disagree with some of the premises. It because of the context.

I can illustrate it better by analogy (which I am borrowing from George).

If a person gives you only two options, to cut off your hands or cut off your head, I am one who will choose to keep my head.

The response I see you present is that this is the same thing as promoting the goodness of cutting off hands.

It isn't.

Cutting off hands is evil.

If there were more options, I would agree with you a lot more. But, short of killing off most of mankind, I don't see any. In other words, if we ignore human nature as it exists, we will never get to a structure where folks can live and strive to become as they should be. The thugs won't let it happen. If you don't believe me, just watch what is going to start happening, starting, say, with union strikes and violence. I've seen it up close in another country. And I hope I am wrong.

btw - I am stunned you are quoting Media Matters (which is a smear tank funded by Soros). Do you ever read that site? It's like quoting a Pravda article to debunk Ayn Rand and capitalism. Facts are facts no matter where they come from, but for God's sake...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

On Glenn Beck's show today he tied the founding of Wikileaks to money from George Soros. The Progressive's motive is chaos and anarchy, then nationalism and tyranny, at which point the Progressives will create a new world order – with them in charge, of course.

Oh God! The Blackboard! Not the Blackboard!'

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Shayne,

Your argument is not convincing to me, but not because I disagree with some of the premises. It because of the context.

I can illustrate it better by analogy (which I am borrowing from George).

If a person gives you only two options, to cut off your hands or cut off your head, I am one who will choose to keep my head.

The response I see you present is that this is the same thing as promoting the goodness of cutting off hands.

It isn't.

Cutting off hands is evil.

If there were more options, I would agree with you a lot more. But, short of killing off most of mankind, I don't see any. In other words, if we ignore human nature as it exists, we will never get to a structure where folks can live and strive to become as they should be. The thugs won't let it happen. If you don't believe me, just watch what is going to start happening, starting, say, with union strikes and violence. I've seen it up close in another country. And I hope I am wrong.

I can't say that I follow your analogies.

btw - I am stunned you are quoting Media Matters (which is a smear tank funded by Soros). Do you ever read that site? It's like quoting a Pravda article to debunk Ayn Rand and capitalism. Facts are facts no matter where they come from, but for God's sake...

Michael

As I said, I just did a google search, I don't know anything about that site.

Shayne

[sjw]

In case you didn't notice, it's already chaos and criminal activity running amok. The 2008 economic crisis and bailouts, the ObamaCare, the TSA, and countless criminal acts against innocent citizens by the judicial system.

Son:

You have no clue as to what a police state, "real chaos" and "criminal activity running amok" is really like.

Adam

Yes, I do, and you know I do. Your point is this: things can be worse, much worse. Yes old man, they can always be worse. Which is why we should fight for the ideal. Only by holding an ideal can we fight to make things better and better. Your method of "it can always be worse so let's just be fat dumb and happy and worship the state" only leads to inexorable degeneration. It is your kind that has caused the United States to degenerate decade after decade. What we need are idealists, not pragmatists.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

On Glenn Beck's show today he tied the founding of Wikileaks to money from George Soros. The Progressive's motive is chaos and anarchy, then nationalism and tyranny, at which point the Progressives will create a new world order – with them in charge, of course.

Oh God! The Blackboard! Not the Blackboard!'

Ba'al Chatzaf

Comedian Dennis Miller once remarked that he isn't a fan of Glenn Beck. He is reluctant to criticize him, however, because he doesn't want to end up on that blackboard.

Ghs

[Selene]

In case you didn't notice, it's already chaos and criminal activity running amok. The 2008 economic crisis and bailouts, the ObamaCare, the TSA, and countless criminal acts against innocent citizens by the judicial system.

Son:

You have no clue as to what a police state, "real chaos" and "criminal activity running amok" is really like.

Adam

Yes, I do, and you know I do. Your point is this: things can be worse, much worse. Yes old man, they can always be worse. Which is why we should fight for the ideal. Only by holding an ideal can we fight to make things better and better. Your method of "it can always be worse so let's just be fat dumb and happy and worship the state" only leads to inexorable degeneration. It is your kind that has caused the United States to degenerate decade after decade. What we need are idealists, not pragmatists.

Shayne

Child:

You can misrepresent my position and misinterpret my position to your heart's content.

You have not experienced a "police state," hell the 60's in Harlem were close enough for my tastes and they were mild compared to the Communist police states. Talk to a Czech, an East German, a German Jew, a Ukrainian, a mainland Chinese individual, a North Korean, a Cambodian, a Bulgarian, a Tibetan, a Romanian, a Pole, a Cuban...I could go on and on.

You are an very intelligent young man which is why it is so sad that you chose to misunderstand so many people's positions. I was going to make the same point about Media Matters that Michael made, but I knew you would viscerally reject it from me. Apparently, it did not matter.

Adam

[sjw]

Child:

You can misrepresent my position and misinterpret my position to your heart's content.

You have not experienced a "police state,"

Old pragmatist:

Such silly arguments are beneath me and should be beneath you. One doesn't have to actually experience something in order to know what it is.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am one who has learned more off of Glenn Beck's blackboard in the last year than off of the combined years of all online discussions I have read and/or taken part in where expert people yell at each other.

Beck also says something I rarely hear in these expert discussions. He says (several times per show nowadays), "Do not take my word for anything. Do your own homework. Look it up and see for yourself. Come to your own conclusions." I have also heard him say often, "Go to a library."

I have been doing just that, too.

I have a very soft spot in my heart for Glenn Beck's blackboard. Without it, I probably would not have been interested enough to look this stuff up.

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Actually, many self-identified objectivists are far worse than run of the mill neocons. Witness the appearance of Leonard Peikoff on Bill O'Reilly's show. Even the neocon stooge O'Reilly thought that Peikoff was speaking like a lunatic.

Martin

O'Reilly would think that anyone defending Natural Rights was a lunatic too. I think this is more a case of a broken clock being right twice a day than O'Reilly actually having a rational thought.

Shayne

On O'Reilly's show, Peikoff was not discussing his philosophy of natural rights. He was discussing Iran. Specifically, he advocated nuking Iran. This was too much even for the neocon O'Reilly, who probably thought that Peikoff was certifiably crazy for openly and enthusiastically advocating a policy that would lead to the death of hundreds of thousands or millions of Iranians.

How pathetic is it that, under the auspices of an institute named after Ayn Rand, Peikoff is openly advocating a policy that entails the mass murder of innocent people? Given Peikoff's fascination with and open advocacy of using weapons of mass destruction, and given ARI's massive rewriting of Rand, it's almost a miracle that Peikoff hasn't decided to make some major rewrites to Atlas Shrugged.

Perhaps he should start with Dr. Robert Stadler, creator of Project X. In the rewritten version, Dr. Stadler becomes a hero for creating this wonderful weapon for killing terrorists. John Galt and the strikers are of course the terrorists, being as they are working to cause the society to collapse by going on strike. Dr. Floyd Ferris discovers the nefarious scheme, moves Project X within range of Galt's Gulch, and wipes out the entire valley. As Galt and the other terrorists are killed by Project X, the strike ends, and everyone lives happily ever after. The government writes a no bid contract with a "defense" company to produce several thousand Project X death rays, enough to cover the entire United States, as well as about a thousand U.S. military bases around the world, thereby insuring that the entire world will exist in a permanent state of peace and stability, courtesy of the Thompson Harmonizer. Peikoff can even claim that it was Rand's secret desire to have Atlas Shrugged rewritten this way.

I hope I haven't given Peikoff any ideas ...

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

My point is to look at history. Do not imagine that if the USA government tanked, people will just go, "Oh well," and try something different. There are some really nasty people organizing right now (not centralized, but in pockets). They all have one purpose, and they are explicit about it: to destroy capitalism and the USA government with it.

That will include massive deaths if they get in power.

Just look at the governments that have been set up the world over during the last century or so where there has been massive public unrest. Do you see any utopias among them? I don't. I just see dictatorships.

The alternative we have (the only one in reality I can see) is what we have right now or them.

As to the analogy, what we have is cutting off our hands. "They" want to cut off our head.

The solution is to make our system better, not destroy it. We don't get to choose any other alternative without "them," and "they" play really dirty.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

My point is to look at history. Do not imagine that if the USA government tanked, people will just go, "Oh well," and try something different. There are some really nasty people organizing right now (not centralized, but in pockets). They all have one purpose, and they are explicit about it: to destroy capitalism and the USA government with it.

That will include massive deaths if they get in power.

Just look at the governments that have been set up the world over during the last century or so where there has been massive public unrest. Do you see any utopias among them? I don't. I just see dictatorships.

The alternative we have (the only one in reality I can see) is what we have right now or them.

As to the analogy, what we have is cutting off our hands. "They" want to cut off our head.

The solution is to make our system better, not destroy it. We don't get to choose any other alternative without "them," and "they" play really dirty.

Michael

Evidently you misinterpret, because I agree that it's bad if the US falls. But what will make it fall? Loss of moral authority primarily. What makes it lose moral authority? Read what I've been saying in this thread and other places. If you want a strong America, rally behind principles, not government.

The moral is the practical.

Shayne

[Selene]

Child:

You can misrepresent my position and misinterpret my position to your heart's content.

You have not experienced a "police state,"

Old pragmatist:

Such silly arguments are beneath me and should be beneath you. One doesn't have to actually experience something in order to know what it is.

Shayne

"Silly" is not a rational argument. You are asserting that in one hundred percent [100%] of the cases that can be cited, that a person does not have to "...actually experience something in order to know what it is..." ? And if that is your assertion, define "know" in the context that you are using it.

Adam

[sjw]

Child:

You can misrepresent my position and misinterpret my position to your heart's content.

You have not experienced a "police state,"

Old pragmatist:

Such silly arguments are beneath me and should be beneath you. One doesn't have to actually experience something in order to know what it is.

Shayne

"Silly" is not a rational argument. You are asserting that in one hundred percent [100%] of the cases that can be cited, that a person does not have to "...actually experience something in order to know what it is..." ? And if that is your assertion, define "know" in the context that you are using it.

Adam

Come on Selene you're not that naive.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But what will make it fall? Loss of moral authority primarily.

Shayne,

I disagree with this--or better yet, I half agree with this. You are leaving out the guns.

If you want a strong America, rally behind principles, not government.

The moral is the practical.

That is precisely what I have been doing with the Tea Party, Beck, etc.

It looks like it is staring to work, but let's see if it keeps going.

I think we need common sense, also.

Michael

[sjw]

But what will make it fall? Loss of moral authority primarily.

Shayne,

I disagree with this--or better yet, I half agree with this. You are leaving out the guns.

All the guns in the world won't make up for a loss of moral authority.

If you want a strong America, rally behind principles, not government.

The moral is the practical.

That is precisely what I have been doing with the Tea Party, Beck, etc.

It looks like it is staring to work, but let's see if it keeps going.

I think we need common sense, also.

Michael

The Tea Party is a good thing. What we need is wave after wave of escalating political action aimed at reclaiming our liberty. In order for that to happen Americans need to embrace principle. It should be remembered that what made America strong in the first place was liberty, so there is no dichotomy of security and liberty. In the long run, to be free is to be secure.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All the guns in the world won't make up for a loss of moral authority.

Shayne,

And all the moral authority in the world will not stop a bullet.

For me, it is not either-or. You need both against thugs.

Michael