Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OILERMAN

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraws asylum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Legaltitan said:

Wait, are deep state whistelblowers like Manning and Assange heroes or villains? 

That's the big question isn't it?

When Bush was in, or recently out of office and the shadow over his admin persisted, they were considered heroes by some and villains by others.

Now those who consider them heroes or villains seem to have switched sides.

 

While Assange was exposing the data collected under Bush most on the left loved him.

While he was exposing the contents of hillary's emails, that love turned to hatred.

 

So, whose ox was most recently gored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

That's the big question isn't it?

When Bush was in, or recently out of office and the shadow over his admin persisted, they were considered heroes by some and villains by others.

Now those who consider them heroes or villains seem to have switched sides.

 

While Assange was exposing the data collected under Bush most on the left loved him.

While he was exposing the contents of hillary's emails, that love turned to hatred.

 

So, whose ox was most recently gored?

Oh I wasn't asking for a riddle I was wondering what you thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Legaltitan said:

Oh I wasn't asking for a riddle I was wondering what you thought.

What I think is: 

Whether or not people "like" JA and what he does has too much to do with which side of the political spectrum they're on.

Starkiller is a prime example.  Not long ago JA (and Manning and Snowden) was (were) one of the left's heroes.  Maybe yours as well.

Lately, not so much.  Bush vs Clinton, Obama vs Trump etc,...

 

So, if you believe it's okay to hurt an office holder (despite the possibility it hurts the office) and that it can be done without hurting the country, he's always going to be a hero to some.

If you believe the country comes first, and hurting the office holder hurts the office, and by extension the country, then he'll always be regarded as a villain regardless of political leanings. 

And believe it or not some people are like that too, maybe to a fault.

To wit: 

I find the arguments like: "Go ahead, let them listen to my calls.  I haven't done anything wrong!"  "I don't call Pakistan" or "Don't break the law and you'll be alright" downright stupid.

The Patriot Act is a prime example.  People who supported Bush liked it just fine for the most part, until Obama was in the White House.

(And some people didn't mind the President governing by executive fiat when obama was signing EOs, but hate it when Trump does it)

 

When it becomes a question of exposing crimes against the constitution and the foundation of our civil liberties by agencies within the dotgov, or leaders of the gov't then that's different.  I believe the citizenry and the voters need to know when they're being hosed by their own government regardless of which political party holds the reins.  Or when they're being hosed by their political party, like the DNC did in 2016 and the Republicans in 2000 and '04.

 

But some still won't like it while others will agree with me, believing that the political establishment in the U.S. is two sides of the same coin.

 

So, it comes down to whether or not they like or dislike it, much like their opinion of Julian Assange,...   based on their politics. 

Because that's what he does.  He exposes hypocrisy in governance and/or political figures.

 

That's enlightening to me, because I find it fascinating when someone who is obviously a politically motivated statist and supports most government controls when they agree with the party in charge, but cheers leakers and whistleblowers and the exposers when they don't share the political philosophy behind that control.

That's a dichotomy I would delve into and really study if I were younger.

Because it clashes on a fundamental level with the idea of democratically elected governance.

And I find it hard to believe some people don't understand that fundamental principle.

 

This country wouldn't exist if the prevailing opinions of today were as prevalent during the founding.  It also wouldn't exist if what we know as "the media" now, had conducted themselves the way they do currently, back then.

We'd have a king, and he would be of one political persuasion.

Edited by TitanDuckFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god, that is one hell of a word salad to express a pretty simple point: one man's turncoat is another man's whistleblower. Mindblowing. I also here that one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist."

 

So yes this happens all the time, but Assange is complicated, and thoughts on Assange don't really break on traditional ideological grounds, because it's complicated. Is he just a journalist putting out information that he gets legally? Is he involved in illegal conspiracies to acquire the information? Does he put his thumb on the scales to expose people he personally doesn't like, while staying his hand on people he is beholden to? Did he actively work with Russia to undermine our election?

 

These questions make Assnge a much more complicated topic than simply "whistleblower good" or "whistleblower bad."

 

Also, Manning was a Whistleblower against Obama. Yet many (most?) of her stanchest supporters are on the left. 

 

I find the whole thing hard to read because I'm not really much of a conspiracy theorist, personally.

Edited by Legaltitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ben4titans said:

Let's see if some of the Russian Collusion Truthers want to answer this.

 

Why would Comey turn down an immunity deal with Assange (setup by Trump team)? He was literally giving up nothing, a small time conspiracy charge, to get info on Podesta hacks, stopping the release of Vault 7 as well as a wide range of knowledge relating to multi-national cyber security issues and threats.

 

Don't let your cognitive dissonance defeat you.

 

 

None of the Russia Truthers want to touch the question above.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   
32 minutes ago, Legaltitan said:

Good god, that is one hell of a word salad to express a pretty simple point: one man's turncoat is another man's whistleblower. Mindblowing. I also here that one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist."

 

So yes this happens all the time, but Assange is complicated, and thoughts on Assange don't really break on traditional ideological grounds, because it's complicated. Is he just a journalist putting out information that he gets legally? Is he involved in illegal conspiracies to acquire the information? Does he put his thumb on the scales to expose people he personally doesn't like, while staying his hand on people he is beholden to? Did he actively work with Russia to undermine our election?

 

These questions make Assnge a much more complicated topic than simply "whistleblower good" or "whistleblower bad."

 

Also, Manning was a Whistleblower against Obama. Yet many (most?) of her stanchest supporters are on the left. 

 

I find the whole thing hard to read because I'm not really much of a conspiracy theorist, personally.

Assange spreads information with the express intent of doing harm to the US government.  It doesn't matter who it's about.  He is not and never has been our friend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Legaltitan said:

Good god, that is one hell of a word salad to express a pretty simple point: one man's turncoat is another man's whistleblower. Mindblowing. I also here that one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist."

 

So yes this happens all the time, but Assange is complicated, and thoughts on Assange don't really break on traditional ideological grounds, because it's complicated. Is he just a journalist putting out information that he gets legally? Is he involved in illegal conspiracies to acquire the information? Does he put his thumb on the scales to expose people he personally doesn't like, while staying his hand on people he is beholden to? Did he actively work with Russia to undermine our election?

 

These questions make Assnge a much more complicated topic than simply "whistleblower good" or "whistleblower bad."

 

Also, Manning was a Whistleblower against Obama. Yet many (most?) of her stanchest supporters are on the left. 

 

I find the whole thing hard to read because I'm not really much of a conspiracy theorist, personally.

It's not a yes or no answer because there's no way to justify either one, and neither one would do the question/answer justice.

My simplest answer looks a lot like this:

 

Julian Assange has done the American people a lot of favors with his epose's, some bigger than others, but since almost all were at great risk to himself, we should thank him for most of them, but punish him minimally for the exposures we opposed.

 

But the ones we approve of or oppose tend to be chosen by our political affiliations.  And if that's going to be the criteria you use, then no one will ever be satisfied.

 

It's like Project Veritas and James O'Keefe.  If the first politician he ever exposed dirt on had been Dick Cheney, the left would have loved him to no end.  You guys would have cheered him to the rafters.  But it wasn't.  It was ACORN. 

So, in your eyes he's a worthless piece of shit that half of you would see thrown in jail if you could.

 

Same with Assange.  If no one had ever heard of him before he released hillary's emails, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  You'd have labeled him a POS and a Russian agent back in 2016 and you'd insist he go to a SuperMax upon arrival in the U.S.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Justafan said:

Assange spreads information with the express intent of doing harm to the US government.  It doesn't matter who it's about.  He is not and never has been our friend.  

When the information he spreads is about the US government spying on their own people, then he did the people a favor and the government can go pound sand.

Just like William Binney and the NSA.

When government is supposed to be: Of the people, By the people, and for the people, then the people need to know when the government is violating their trust.

That's the very definition of a whistleblower.

And it's something the legacy media used to do all the time.

Now they only do it to the politicians and the programs they disagree with.  The pols and the programs they like they help hide wrongdoing for, or minimize it.

Then when someone in the New Media releases it, y'all call it a conspiracy theory.

 

Edited by TitanDuckFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rolltide said:

I blamed Obama for something he did. Not disputable he did that! I did not blame him for Starbucks raising the price of a cappuccino I blamed him for something he did and only he could have done. If you cannot handle that then too bad. 

You accused Dems of being obsessed with Assange, yet the entire GOP incessantly bash Obama and Hillary. Pot can't call the kettle black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   
2 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

When the information he spreads is about the US government spying on their own people, then he did the people a favor and the government can go pound sand.

Just like William Binney and the NSA.

When government is supposed to be: Of the people, By the people, and for the people, then the people need to know when the government is violating their trust.

That's the very definition of a whistleblower.

And it's something the legacy media used to do all the time.

Now they only do it to the politicians and the programs they disagree with.  The pols and the programs they like they help hide wrongdoing for, or minimize it.

Then when someone in the New Media releases it, y'all call it a conspiracy theory.

 

William Binney and Jullian Assange are not close to the same thing.  I don't care about the conspiracy theories or who benefited from the leaks.  Assange leaked information repeatedly with the intent of damaging the US government.  Binney was a whistleblower and not a saboteur.  You can prop him up as some hero if you want but what he did was criminal.  He didn't do it to help Americans.  He's not even American.  He did it to hurt America and Americans.

 

He can pound sand and I hope they lock him up for it.  Screw that, he's eligible for the death penalty.  While they're at it go get Berghdal and lock Manning back up too.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, begooode said:

Did Assange put people in harm’s way with some of the WikiLeaks disclosures?

Hard to say, but he released 570,000 emails sent on 911, some of which were from the Pentagon, FBI, FEMA and the NYPD department. I would say that could  expose US citizens to risk. I haven't read a lot about it but it looks like the potential is there.

Edited by freakingeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Justafan said:

William Binney and Jullian Assange are not close to the same thing.  I don't care about the conspiracy theories or who benefited from the leaks.  Assange leaked information repeatedly with the intent of damaging the US government.  Binney was a whistleblower and not a saboteur.  You can prop him up as some hero if you want but what he did was criminal.  He didn't do it to help Americans.  He's not even American.  He did it to hurt America and Americans.

 

He can pound sand and I hope they lock him up for it.  Screw that, he's eligible for the death penalty.  While they're at it go get Berghdal and lock Manning back up too.    

Assange released information about what took place in battles and war zones during conflict, and for that he can't be forgiven.  No one who has never experienced war first hand should ever stand in judgement of the actions one takes in that situation, because there's no way an outside observer can put it in context.  I get that part completely. 

But there were also things released about our own government's actions domestically that the people needed to know, and never would have without his actions and the actions of the people who fed him that info.

So not all of what he's done is bad, while not all has been good either.

 

But I don't know how anyone can condemn him while believing Manning should be free.

That makes no sense at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   
2 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

Assange released information about what took place in battles and war zones during conflict, and for that he can't be forgiven.  No one who has never experienced war first hand should ever stand in judgement of the actions one takes in that situation, because there's no way an outside observer can put it in context.  I get that part completely. 

But there were also things released about our own government's actions domestically that the people needed to know, and never would have without his actions and the actions of the people who fed him that info.

So not all of what he's done is bad, while not all has been good either.

 

But I don't know how anyone can condemn him while believing Manning should be free.

That makes no sense at all.

 

The good, I won't argue there was some, doesn't forgive the bad.  I agree that the same logic applies to Manning.  That POS sold out her country.  She/he should find a dark lonely cell and sit.  Same with Berghdal and all the Americans who fought for the Taliban.  Fuck em' all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Justafan said:

The good, I won't argue there was some, doesn't forgive the bad.  I agree that the same logic applies to Manning.  That POS sold out her country.  She/he should find a dark lonely cell and sit.  Same with Berghdal and all the Americans who fought for the Taliban.  Fuck em' all.  

I totally agree on Bergdahl. 

Odd that you haven't brought up Snowden.

Jail time or hanging?

 

If he hadn't headed for Russia I'd say Jail.  But since then?  Nope.

Get a rope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...