Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

chuckd · December 10, 2010

Fact. Over 90% of American college professors are left wing.

They preach the Marxist rhetoric.

Heck that's fine.

But into their 20's Americans begin to grasp that Cuba isn't a great place to live & that if they want to earn money & keep it; maybe the Herbert Hoover, FDR, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Hussein Obama model of steal from the rich & give to the lazy isn;t the best paradigm

So hey Berkley - we love you - but we think you need to be locked up..

A Marxist would argue that democracy must be destroyed for the benefit of the oppressed. I seriously doubt 90% of US college professors preach such openly or we would hear about it form Fox propagandists. Maybe many believe in the democratic principle of state health care for all which is a concept stemming from social democracy which was established to undermine socialist and marxist attempts to completely change the system with no democracy.In heated debates it is easy to throw things around but this statement defies belief

It is good today to see Pfizer exposed for its hideously corrupt practices

Well, you sure nailed powderpuff on that 90% claim. It seems to be only 87% at the "most elite schools'.

________________________________________________________________

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

________________________________________________________________

hammered · December 10, 2010

Fact. Over 90% of American college professors are left wing.

They preach the Marxist rhetoric.

Heck that's fine.

But into their 20's Americans begin to grasp that Cuba isn't a great place to live & that if they want to earn money & keep it; maybe the Herbert Hoover, FDR, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Hussein Obama model of steal from the rich & give to the lazy isn;t the best paradigm

So hey Berkley - we love you - but we think you need to be locked up..

A Marxist would argue that democracy must be destroyed for the benefit of the oppressed. I seriously doubt 90% of US college professors preach such openly or we would hear about it form Fox propagandists. Maybe many believe in the democratic principle of state health care for all which is a concept stemming from social democracy which was established to undermine socialist and marxist attempts to completely change the system with no democracy.In heated debates it is easy to throw things around but this statement defies belief

It is good today to see Pfizer exposed for its hideously corrupt practices

Well, you sure nailed powderpuff on that 90% claim. It seems to be only 87% at the "most elite schools'.

________________________________________________________________

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

________________________________________________________________

Liberals dont preach marxist rhetoric They preach libearl rhetoric

chuckd · December 10, 2010

A Marxist would argue that democracy must be destroyed for the benefit of the oppressed. I seriously doubt 90% of US college professors preach such openly or we would hear about it form Fox propagandists. Maybe many believe in the democratic principle of state health care for all which is a concept stemming from social democracy which was established to undermine socialist and marxist attempts to completely change the system with no democracy.In heated debates it is easy to throw things around but this statement defies belief

It is good today to see Pfizer exposed for its hideously corrupt practices

Well, you sure nailed powderpuff on that 90% claim. It seems to be only 87% at the "most elite schools'.

________________________________________________________________

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

________________________________________________________________

Liberals dont preach marxist rhetoric They preach libearl rhetoric

...and the difference is???

Many would argue today's Democratic Party and the current administration are practicing Marxism. As our current President is a product of liberal education with little experience in the real world, Marxism seems to be where we were heading.

hammered · December 10, 2010

A Marxist would argue that democracy must be destroyed for the benefit of the oppressed. I seriously doubt 90% of US college professors preach such openly or we would hear about it form Fox propagandists. Maybe many believe in the democratic principle of state health care for all which is a concept stemming from social democracy which was established to undermine socialist and marxist attempts to completely change the system with no democracy.In heated debates it is easy to throw things around but this statement defies belief

It is good today to see Pfizer exposed for its hideously corrupt practices

Well, you sure nailed powderpuff on that 90% claim. It seems to be only 87% at the "most elite schools'.

________________________________________________________________

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

________________________________________________________________

Liberals dont preach marxist rhetoric They preach libearl rhetoric

...and the difference is???

Many would argue today's Democratic Party and the current administration are practicing Marxism. As our current President is a product of liberal education with little experience in the real world, Marxism seems to be where we were heading.

A study in political theory would reveal very big differences if you are really interested

TAWP · December 10, 2010

...and the difference is???

Many would argue today's Democratic Party and the current administration are practicing Marxism. As our current President is a product of liberal education with little experience in the real world, Marxism seems to be where we were heading.

As a class of Political Science 101 would tell you, the Democrat Party is far from any Marxist party.

Yes, they are pro-big government, statism, meddling in other nations affairs and starting wars - but so are the Neo-cons that have taken over the Republican party the last 20 years.

Authoritarian they are, Marxist they are not.

Otherwise, if the Democrat Party is Marxist, what is the center parties in Europe? Marxist++?

And then the left, i.e. Social Democrats etc? Super Marxist? [ignoring the fact that they are not Marxist at all]

And then the Ultra-left Marxist parties in Europe are so much left that mentioning their names opens up a worm-whole that consumes the galaxy...

moetownblues · December 10, 2010

I just had this emailed to me. Sarah Palin wants Julian Assange hunted as a terrorist.1 She's among a swelling chorus of American politicians calling for the arrest - and even the death - of the Australian citizen who runs Wikileaks. It's a shame that real terrorists, the kind we should be focusing our attention on, don't show up at British Police stations with their lawyers, as Wikileaks founder Julian Assange did yesterday. Here in Australia, Prime Minister Gillard pre-emptively judged Mr. Assange "illegal," even as the Attorney General confirmed that no Australian nor international crime by wikileaks has been identified.2 The death penalty? Judgment before trial? This isn't the kind of justice system we have in Australia. If our Government won't stand up for the rights of Australian citizens, let's do it ourselves. We're printing ads in the Washington Times and the New York Times with the statement our Government should have made, signed by as many Australians as possible. Will you add your name to the signatories, and invite your friends to join too? <a href='http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks?dc=1471,535854,1' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks</a> The statement: Dear President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder: We, as Australians, condemn calls for violence, including assassination, against Australian citizen and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, or for him to be labeled a terrorist, enemy combatant or be treated outside the ordinary course of justice in any way. As Thomas Jefferson said, "information is the currency of democracy."3 Publishing leaked information in collaboration with major news outlets, as Wikileaks and Mr. Assange have done, is not a terrorist act. Australia and the United States are the strongest of allies. Our soldiers serve side by side and we've experienced, and condemned, the consequences of terrorism together. To label Wikileaks a terrorist organisation is an insult to those Australians and Americans who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism and to terrorist forces. If Wikileaks or their staff have broken international or national laws, let that case be heard in a just and fair court of law. At the moment, no such charges have been brought. We are writing as Australians to say what our Government should have said: that all Australian citizens deserve to be free from persecution, threats of violence and detention without charge, especially from our friend and ally, the United States. We call upon you to stand up for our shared democratic principles of the presumption of innocence and freedom of information. We're printing this statement in the Washington Times and the New York Times early next week - and the more Australians sign, the more powerful the message will be. Please add your name by clicking below, and forward this message to friends and family: <a href='http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks?dc=1471,535854,1' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks</a> What has started with WikiLeaks being branded as terrorists won't end there. In fact, just yesterday U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, Chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee, said that the New York Times should also be investigated under the U.S. Espionage Act for publishing a number of the diplomatic cables leaked to Wikileaks.4 We can help stop such plans in their tracks, by showing how they are affecting the image of the US in the eyes of their staunchest friends and allies. <a href='http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks?dc=1471,535854,1' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>Click here</a> to sign the statement before it's published in the New York Times and Washington Times. Thanks for being part of this, the GetUp team. --- 1 Beckford, M., 'Sarah Palin: hunt WikiLeaks founder like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders', The Telegraph, 30 November 2010. 2 Oakes, L., 'Oakes: Gillard gushes over US leaks', Perth Now, 4 December 2010. 3 The quote is widely attributed to Jefferson, but some now dispute whether he actually said it. We know, at least, that he said "knowledge is power," even if Francis Bacon did say it first. 4 Savage, C., 'U.S. prosecuters study WikiLeaks prosecution', The New York Times, 7 December 2010.

I think it is appauling that high profile Americans can incite murder of a citizen of another country. As Australian politicians have stated he has not broken any laws. Support is growing by the day and demonstrations are building in the streets of Australia. If America wants to continue with this witch hunt then Australia should withdraw it's support for Afaganistan and bring our troops home. America needs Australian troops in Afaganistan solely for polictical reasons. Australians are dying for an American cause and they show thier thanks with trumped up allegations about wikileaks and it's founder. The U.S should not be driving a wedge between itself and one of it's best allies. You smack a friend in the face and he will no longer be your friend.

philw · December 10, 2010

A Marxist would argue that democracy must be destroyed for the benefit of the oppressed. I seriously doubt 90% of US college professors preach such openly or we would hear about it form Fox propagandists. Maybe many believe in the democratic principle of state health care for all which is a concept stemming from social democracy which was established to undermine socialist and marxist attempts to completely change the system with no democracy.In heated debates it is easy to throw things around but this statement defies belief

It is good today to see Pfizer exposed for its hideously corrupt practices

Well, you sure nailed powderpuff on that 90% claim. It seems to be only 87% at the "most elite schools'.

________________________________________________________________

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

________________________________________________________________

Liberals dont preach marxist rhetoric They preach libearl rhetoric

...and the difference is???

Many would argue today's Democratic Party and the current administration are practicing Marxism. As our current President is a product of liberal education with little experience in the real world, Marxism seems to be where we were heading.

Could you give an example of the Democrat and Obama "Marxist" policies.

I am eager to learn how the current administration are Marxist.

Ulysses G. · December 10, 2010

I'm sure that if an American citizen badly harmed Australia there would be plenty of outcry about it and I doubt if most Australians - other than the looney left - give a toss about Julian Assange.

moetownblues · December 10, 2010

Well I guess Ulysses G. you no very little about Australians if you think they are looney's for standing up for freedom of speach. Aussie will always united and stand together when one of thier own is threatened. I am sure you have heard of the ANZAC spirit.

philw · December 10, 2010

I'm sure that if an American citizen badly harmed Australia there would be plenty of outcry about it and I doubt if most Australians - other than the looney left - give a toss about Julian Assange.

I think you are quite mistaken.

mark45y · December 10, 2010

I'm sure that if an American citizen badly harmed Australia there would be plenty of outcry about it and I doubt if most Australians - other than the looney left - give a toss about Julian Assange.

I think you are quite mistaken.

You might want to take a look at Douglas MacArthur.

philw · December 10, 2010

I'm sure that if an American citizen badly harmed Australia there would be plenty of outcry about it and I doubt if most Australians - other than the looney left - give a toss about Julian Assange.

I think you are quite mistaken.

You might want to take a look at Douglas MacArthur.

C

Thank you for a completely irrelevant comment.

Macarthur has any bearing on the subject ??

Please enlighten me.

mark45y · December 10, 2010

I'm sure that if an American citizen badly harmed Australia there would be plenty of outcry about it and I doubt if most Australians - other than the looney left - give a toss about Julian Assange.

I think you are quite mistaken.

You might want to take a look at Douglas MacArthur.

C

Thank you for a completely irrelevant comment.

Macarthur has any bearing on the subject ??

Please enlighten me.

There were probably more Australians angry with Douglas MacArthur than any other American in history. It was 60 or so years ago. Ask Grandpa. Although it was in all the newspapers at the time. General Doublas MacArthur Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific Area during WW II.

Ulysses G. · December 10, 2010

Well I guess Ulysses G. you no very little about Australians if you think they are looney's for standing up for freedom of speach. Aussie will always united and stand together when one of thier own is threatened. I am sure you have heard of the ANZAC spirit.

Thanks for the well written reply, but where did you get all that from? I stated quite clearly that I do not think most Australians could give a toss about Assange other than the loony left. :ermm:

hammered · December 11, 2010

It is arguable to say the least that wikileaks has harmed America (mmeaning the USA I guess). The USA has a fine constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and exercising the right of that anywhere in the world is likely something any true amercian patriot would support. Of course wikileaks has harmed the US government in terms of the personnel in it and those faux patriots who cheerlead US government action while forgetting what the country is all about may dislike this, but it could be argued that the US government by denying everything the country was established for is harming the American (US) people more than wikileaks.

It really comes down to what do you believe in and what is America (US). Is it an example to all based on freedom including constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech or is it about being a militaristic power that routinely undermines the very principles on which it was established through government and pottnially and maybe ibn proactice poltically appointed and politically motivated courts reinterpretation of the constituion to devalue it? In a free democracy it is the duty of the people to remain vigilant to and prevent government and opther bodies from corrupting that democracy. To do this people need information. When the government says something is secret and it you shouldnt know it, it is likely something you should know more often than not.

Ulysses G. · December 11, 2010

The USA has a fine constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech

That does not including yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. WikiLeaks is the moral equivalent.

canuckamuck · December 11, 2010

It is arguable to say the least that wikileaks has harmed America (mmeaning the USA I guess). The USA has a fine constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and exercising the right of that anywhere in the world is likely something any true amercian patriot would support. Of course wikileaks has harmed the US government in terms of the personnel in it and those faux patriots who cheerlead US government action while forgetting what the country is all about may dislike this, but it could be argued that the US government by denying everything the country was established for is harming the American (US) people more than wikileaks.

It really comes down to what do you believe in and what is America (US). Is it an example to all based on freedom including constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech or is it about being a militaristic power that routinely undermines the very principles on which it was established through government and pottnially and maybe ibn proactice poltically appointed and politically motivated courts reinterpretation of the constituion to devalue it? In a free democracy it is the duty of the people to remain vigilant to and prevent government and opther bodies from corrupting that democracy. To do this people need information. When the government says something is secret and it you shouldnt know it, it is likely something you should know more often than not.

So you believe governments can function without secrets?

Do you have curtains at your house?

hammered · December 11, 2010

It is arguable to say the least that wikileaks has harmed America (mmeaning the USA I guess). The USA has a fine constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and exercising the right of that anywhere in the world is likely something any true amercian patriot would support. Of course wikileaks has harmed the US government in terms of the personnel in it and those faux patriots who cheerlead US government action while forgetting what the country is all about may dislike this, but it could be argued that the US government by denying everything the country was established for is harming the American (US) people more than wikileaks.

It really comes down to what do you believe in and what is America (US). Is it an example to all based on freedom including constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech or is it about being a militaristic power that routinely undermines the very principles on which it was established through government and pottnially and maybe ibn proactice poltically appointed and politically motivated courts reinterpretation of the constituion to devalue it? In a free democracy it is the duty of the people to remain vigilant to and prevent government and opther bodies from corrupting that democracy. To do this people need information. When the government says something is secret and it you shouldnt know it, it is likely something you should know more often than not.

So you believe governments can function without secrets?

Do you have curtains at your house?

I believe as an ideal governments should function without secrets ans as with all ideals that is something we shoudl strive towards. Right now though we arent there, but every step in that direction not only helps but also makes it harder for government to do things in the name of their people that are wrong.

SweeneyAgonistes · December 11, 2010

That does not including yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. WikiLeaks is the moral equivalent.

Not even remotely close. In fact, they're not so much in different countries as in different galaxies. Just to take a couple of examples, knowing that the american government is spying on the UN, that Shell is intimately involved with the thoroughly corrupt Nigerian state and that Berlusconi is personally profiting from his weirdly intimate relationship with Putin is clearly in the pubic interest. Of course, if you had actually paid attention to the contents of the cables and thought for yourself, rather than mindlessly parroting what in america laughably passes for an independent media, you would probably have come to this conclusion yourself.

canuckamuck · December 11, 2010

Part of freedom is the ability to have confidentiality.

A government cannot serve it's people without this aspect.

You can argue that this gives the opportunity for people to hide crimes as well, but the answer is to reform the system from within as it decays. To post government secrets on the web can only result in one thing; a reduction in freedom for all, because the first thing to be changed will be the net, not the government. All governments will protect their secrets as a top priority

I expect that since the latest leaks, internet regulation has become the hottest topic in government think tanks around the world.

What Assange will be remembered for is being the man who began the destruction of the net. Just like Sept 11 screwed up air travel around the world permanently. Assange's terrorist like attacks on the US and other governments will create massive bureaucracy and inconvenience for the internet with a great deal of freedoms lost.

hammered · December 11, 2010

Part of freedom is the ability to have confidentiality.

A government cannot serve it's people without this aspect.

You can argue that this gives the opportunity for people to hide crimes as well, but the answer is to reform the system from within as it decays. To post government secrets on the web can only result in one thing; a reduction in freedom for all, because the first thing to be changed will be the net, not the government. All governments will protect their secrets as a top priority

I expect that since the latest leaks, internet regulation has become the hottest topic in government think tanks around the world.

What Assange will be remembered for is being the man who began the destruction of the net. Just like Sept 11 screwed up air travel around the world permanently. Assange's terrorist like attacks on the US and other governments will create massive bureaucracy and inconvenience for the internet with a great deal of freedoms lost.

That is one worry of course. Howvever, we must have hope. Government secrets have of coruse been leaked in the past and yet in general there is probably more freedom in the world now than before. We will see.

One writer in the Guardian summed it up as accept wikileaks type organizations (unreservedly) or shut the net down. I would see those as actaully extremes on a continuum and it is just where the line is drawn. It could move in either direction and both have repercussions across the planet

Ulysses G. · December 11, 2010

That does not including yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. WikiLeaks is the moral equivalent.

Not even remotely close...

If you say so. :giggle:

Ulysses G. · December 11, 2010

What Assange will be remembered for is being the man who began the destruction of the net. Just like Sept 11 screwed up air travel around the world permanently.

It is too bad that he can not be charged with that. Espionage will have to do. :annoyed:

siampolee · December 11, 2010

Interesting take on the matter now.

Does the great God America realise at last that their perverse brand of democracy is not quite the knight in shining armour that they would have us think ?

Hence their little femanazi lapdog has scurried away to escape.

Australia’s Crikey.com reports (h/t Raw Story):

Anna Ardin, one of the two complainants in the rape and sexual assault case against WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, has left Sweden, and may have ceased actively co-operating with the Swedish prosecution service and her own lawyer, sources in Sweden told Crikey today.

The move comes amid a growing campaign by leading Western feminists to question the investigation, and renewed confusion as to whether Sweden has actually issued charges against Assange. Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, and the European group Women Against Rape, have all made statements questioning the nature and purpose of the prosecution.

Ardin, who also goes by the name Bernardin, has moved to the West Bank in the Palestinian Territories, as part of a Christian outreach group, aimed at bringing reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. She has moved to the small town of Yanoun, which sits close to Israel’s security/sequestration wall. Yanoun is constantly besieged by fundamentalist Jewish settlers, and international groups have frequently stationed themselves there.

Ardin recently mocked her detractors and the press by tweeting: “CIA agent, rabid feminist / Muslim lover, a Christian fundamentalist, frigid & fatally in love with a man, can you be all that at the same time …”

SweeneyAgonistes · December 11, 2010

That does not including yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. WikiLeaks is the moral equivalent.

Not even remotely close...

If you say so.

And I do, so thank you for conceding the point.

SweeneyAgonistes · December 11, 2010

Part of freedom is the ability to have confidentiality

What does that mean? You're not talking about a person, you're talking about the government and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

You can argue that this gives the opportunity for people to hide crimes as well

It's not a matter of arguing it; it clearly is the case. Read the cables.

To post government secrets on the web can only result in one thing; a reduction in freedom for all, because the first thing to be changed will be the net, not the government. All governments will protect their secrets as a top priority

It's certainly not true that it will 'only result' in that but it's clearly a distinct possibility, which is why citizens in every country need to fight their governments and the growing merger of corporate and governmental functions. Boycott companies participating in this outrage; pressure your elected representatives; if you want, have a hunt around for the Anonymous group and join up with them.

What Assange will be remembered for is being the man who began the destruction of the net.

By some, perhaps, though the overwhelming majority of them are in america. But if you look a the international reaction, a very strong strand of thought is that this exposes the absolute hypocrisy of western governments; the second freedom poses a threat to their power, the mask slips.

Assange's terrorist like attacks on the US

Oh dear. You were keeping it together until that point.

koheesti · December 11, 2010

Interesting take on the matter now.

Does the great God America realise at last that their perverse brand of democracy is not quite the knight in shining armour that they would have us think ?

Hence their little femanazi lapdog has scurried away to escape.



Australia’s Crikey.com reports (h/t Raw Story):

Anna Ardin, one of the two complainants in the rape and sexual assault case against WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, has left Sweden, and may have ceased actively co-operating with the Swedish prosecution service and her own lawyer, sources in Sweden told Crikey today.

The move comes amid a growing campaign by leading Western feminists to question the investigation, and renewed confusion as to whether Sweden has actually issued charges against Assange. Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, and the European group Women Against Rape, have all made statements questioning the nature and purpose of the prosecution.

Ardin, who also goes by the name Bernardin, has moved to the West Bank in the Palestinian Territories, as part of a Christian outreach group, aimed at bringing reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. She has moved to the small town of Yanoun, which sits close to Israel’s security/sequestration wall. Yanoun is constantly besieged by fundamentalist Jewish settlers, and international groups have frequently stationed themselves there.

Ardin recently mocked her detractors and the press by tweeting: “CIA agent, rabid feminist / Muslim lover, a Christian fundamentalist, frigid & fatally in love with a man, can you be all that at the same time …”

No surprise she left. I'm sure the feminazi has been threatened by Assange supporters. It seems they've been threatening and attacking everyone else.

canuckamuck · December 11, 2010

Part of freedom is the ability to have confidentiality

What does that mean? You're not talking about a person, you're talking about the government and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

A corporation is not a person either, but it is necessary for corporation to have confidential information to operate, the same is true for governments. Do you really want the rest of the world to have access to everything your government is doing. What does that do for your national security? Why do we have to live in glass houses?

canuckamuck · December 11, 2010

Assange's terrorist like attacks on the US

Oh dear. You were keeping it together until that point.

Gee aren't the Wiki boys threatening to release information that will be damaging to the banking system. Seems like a terror threat to me, although anarchists act like it's a Christmas gift.

koheesti · December 11, 2010

Part of freedom is the ability to have confidentiality.

A government cannot serve it's people without this aspect.

You can argue that this gives the opportunity for people to hide crimes as well, but the answer is to reform the system from within as it decays. To post government secrets on the web can only result in one thing; a reduction in freedom for all, because the first thing to be changed will be the net, not the government. All governments will protect their secrets as a top priority

I expect that since the latest leaks, internet regulation has become the hottest topic in government think tanks around the world.

What Assange will be remembered for is being the man who began the destruction of the net. Just like Sept 11 screwed up air travel around the world permanently. Assange's terrorist like attacks on the US and other governments will create massive bureaucracy and inconvenience for the internet with a great deal of freedoms lost.

That is one worry of course. Howvever, we must have hope. Government secrets have of coruse been leaked in the past and yet in general there is probably more freedom in the world now than before. We will see.

One writer in the Guardian summed it up as accept wikileaks type organizations (unreservedly) or shut the net down. I would see those as actaully extremes on a continuum and it is just where the line is drawn. It could move in either direction and both have repercussions across the planet

I think canuckamuck is right. The Internet - and the people who use it - will suffer because Assange.

Gov't SECRETS have been released in the past, true. But this is different. Assange didn't target one secret, he posted a quarter of a million cables. Imagine what would happen if in your company had a controversial policy and instead of someone leaking a few emails related to it, they released all company emails from the previous 15 years. That's what Assange did.

Sign In

Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics

Popular Contributors

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US