It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DethDriver
I'm very torn as to what should happen to Assange because it comes down to how you look at the cables being leaked. The way I'm looking at it is that it goes without saying that there are certain things the general public shouldn't know about their Government, and there are certain things countries shouldn't know about other ones. It's the nature of the beast, and embarrassment may have something to do with it, but there are greater things at stake.
As far as the US is concerned, this isn't the days of George Washington & Thomas Jefferson with that 'government is best which governs least'; mentality. I wish it were, but that's changed now and this is where we're at. Nations must have secrets to a certain extent. It is necessary for a number reasons, some of which are obvious and for others not so much. Assange seems like an intelligent person, and he knew what he was doing and now he got his ass in a jam because of it. Some are going to try to turn this guy into a martyr for all the wrong reasons.
Personally I don't feel sorry for him because it's not like he got fooled into it. This goes beyond the realm of "free speech", what was leaked has International implications, there is a difference between wanting to 'expose the man' and irresponsibility. Okay, we have the right to freedom of speech, but nowhere does it say that we are free from the consequences that come along with that freedom.
This is a fine example.edit on 19-8-2012 by DethDriver because: coding error
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Xcathdra
That is Bradley Manning.
You are wrong on that one, I know a member of his family.........................care to go on?????
Do not play the try to discredit me game.
edit on 19-8-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)
On the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks.org, marched with his lawyer into the London office of Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based on the quarter of a million documents that he had handed over to The Guardian just three months earlier.
In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience.
He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission.
Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.
Originally posted by UDHR19
Originally posted by youwillneverknow
reply to post by ofhumandescent
Surely he gets what he deserves - it is treason at the end of the day.
And lying to the public who pays the government's salaries isn't?