Thread: Wikileaks...

The unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a national disgrace, and in the history books, it will be shown as such.
All these documents do is make that judgement clearer at an earlier date than many people would have liked.
The person who got this stuff out will be subject to criminal sanctions, and will be a moral hero in the mold of Daniel Ellsburg.
At this point we look at Nixon as a villain, and Ellsburg as a hero. And in the future history books will show Bush and Cheney as evil villains, and the person who released these documents as a hero.
Well, except maybe for the history taught at Liberty University, between Bible study and Creation Science.

Originally Posted by Slon

Why are you dodging the question? Look, it's very simple. Your position appears to be that it is never right or acceptable to break the law. You simply see no reason to support it.

Steve: I see no reason to...

To test your stated theory, I asked you a hypothetical question involving a situation that had just this dilemma: the law says it's illegal, but many think it's okay to break it. Instead of manning up and answering "no, I'd just walk to my death because it's always wrong to break the law" (upholding your theory) or answering "yes, I'd escape because the law is sometimes wrong and it is sometimes acceptable to break it" (throwing out your theory), you dodge the question that might make you look bad and instead post about "childish idocy."

Is that the best you've got?

A typo?

You are such a child.

Feel free to start a thread about the Holocaust, Slon.

In the meantime, grow up and try to focus on the topic...

Originally Posted by goober

Well, except maybe for the history taught at Liberty University, between Bible study and Creation Science.

See, you were doing okay until that little nugget of stupidity.

I don't believe the Bible or "creation science". I believe the person who leaked this information should be charged, tried, convicted, and punished. A hero? No, he's piece of human shit. But, hey he'll get to be a "moral hero", so he's got that going for him. History will him to be the virus that he is...

Originally Posted by Steve

See, you were doing okay until that little nugget of stupidity.

I don't believe the Bible or "creation science". I believe the person who leaked this information should be charged, tried, convicted, and punished. A hero? No, he's piece of human shit. But, hey he'll get to be a "moral hero", so he's got that going for him. History will him to be the virus that he is...

If he gets punished severely history will treat him favorably, if he is only given a slap on the wrist history will mostly forget him.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

If he gets punished severely history will treat him favorably...

That and a Toonie will get him a cup of coffee...

Over 66,000 non-combatant civilians are killed as a result of the hawks that pushed for war, and at the hands of our soldiers (I wonder how many of those civilians were killed by Blackwater mercs). Steve, would you rather this just go undisclosed, and just be dismissed under the "war is hell" umbrella excuse? I think there's a saying, that history is written by the victors, but maybe those days are over.

Originally Posted by Angry American

Steve, would you rather this just go undisclosed...

If disclosing them requires breaking the law, then they should be disclosed.

I don't have a probelm with the information that's being released, I have a problem with the manner in which it's being released.

Two different things...

Originally Posted by Steve

If disclosing them requires breaking the law, then they should be disclosed.

I don't have a probelm with the information that's being released, I have a problem with the manner in which it's being released.

Two different things...

First you say if disclosure requires breaking the law then so be it, but at the same time you have a problem with the manner in which things are being disclosed. America has a history of sweeping things under the rug. Someone did break the law to give Wikileaks these documents, and they've been arrested.

Wikileaks gives the Pentagon advanced copies, and the Pentagon takes measures to mitigate their impact. The Pentagon also stated that the latest dumb was relatively low level intel. Wikileaks also gave the courtesy of redacting the names from the documents, which is what the Pentagon was most concerned about, based on what I've read.

Which is worse? The circumstances and facts about the 109,000 deaths reported by wikileaks or the way in which the facts were released? There are multiple levels of 'wrongness' and it seems like a lot more energy is being spent attacking the messenger in this case than attacking what has been happening in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Angry American

First you say if disclosure requires breaking the law then so be it, but at the same time you have a problem with the manner in which things are being disclosed. America has a history of sweeping things under the rug. Someone did break the law to give Wikileaks these documents, and they've been arrested.

Wikileaks gives the Pentagon advanced copies, and the Pentagon takes measures to mitigate their impact. The Pentagon also stated that the latest dumb was relatively low level intel. Wikileaks also gave the courtesy of redacting the names from the documents, which is what the Pentagon was most concerned about, based on what I've read.

Apologies; I meant to say "If disclosing them requires breaking the law, then they should not be disclosed"...

Originally Posted by Steve

Apologies; I meant to say "If disclosing them requires breaking the law, then they should not be disclosed"...

Well, Wikileaks isn't breaking the law, it's just publishing information that is available.
This was decided in the Pentagon Papers case, once that cat was out of the bag, you can't put it back.

This is what happens when a country commits war crimes, they get revealed, and the military get reviled, which actually results in budget cuts. Look at the bright side.

So there were WMDs and Iranian forces did engage U.S. forces well inside IRAQ? Seems the neo-clowns were indeed incompetent stooges.

Originally Posted by Steve

Is that the best you've got?

A typo?

No, the best I had in that part was my calling you out on your dodging. And of course I have the argument that you dodged. I pointed out the typo because I thought it was funny how you even fucked up your dodge (which is all you had) in such an ironic way.

You are such a child.

Feel free to start a thread about the Holocaust, Slon.

In the meantime, grow up and try to focus on the topic...

I am. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that my question is related to this topic and has merit in this discussion. It's not really about the Holocaust, Steve. It's about situations where the law is unjust. The situation I mentioned simply happened to fit that description, that's all. It's already rather obvious that you said something stupid, walking yourself into a logical corner, and are now making yourself look even more foolish by being stubborn on top of that.