Thread: A question about Wikileaks

Originally Posted by Agentorange

If you can work up enough anger to call for Assange to be killed for telling the truth....why can you not work up the same levels of anger for those who have been lying ?

Can you quote the specific alleged lie and prove it is, in fact, a lie?

Well, I mentioned one of the things in my original post, namely that the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were according to unreleased figures higher than the official released figures.

Please note this isn't a dig at Bush or Obama, being British I have no axe to grind for either side

WikiLeaks: Iraqi Civilian Deaths Higher Than Ever Reported - ABC News

Documents released by WikiLeaks question US civilian casualty figures in Iraq | The Australian

Nor am I overly naive, like the man said: " war is hell " both countries ( that is Iraq and Afghanistan ) are war zones, people are going to die, sad but true. And in the fog and confusion of war it is inevitable that innocents are going to die, it may not be right but it's going to happen.

Originally Posted by Agentorange

I've been reading the various threads about wikileaks here for a while, and it's obviously a subject that arouses strong feelings from both sides. There are those who think that Assange is the devil incarnate and who are calling for his death, in the other corner are those who feel he's the second coming of christ and can do no wrong with various shades of opinion in between.

But there's one thing that has surprised me in all of this, it's really more of a question for those who feel that Assange should be murdered or jailed, so here 'tis : Why are you not displaying the same levels of anger, indeed any anger towards your own goverment ? One thing that wikileaks has revealed is that the US government has at best been, how shall we say, economical with the truth. At worst it has outright lied by giving out false casualty figures about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afgfhanistan and in various other matters it has been less than honest to you the citizens of the USA.

Now reading and talking to people here, my understanding is that the US government is the servant of the people of the USA, not the ruler. The things it does, the people it kills are done and killed in your name. So your servant has been consistently lying to you.....so where's the anger ?

Amidst the calls for Assange to be killed why do I not see calls for politicians to be impeached ? Amidst the calls for Assange to be jailed why do I not see calls for military personnel to be dishonourably discharged?

If you can work up enough anger to call for Assange to be killed for telling the truth....why can you not work up the same levels of anger for those who have been lying ?

The answer is simple. The Right, in all of their patriotic zeal, as they've been conditioned to be, has a deference to authority; what is generally known psychologically as Right-wing Authoritarianism:

Snippets follow:

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. It is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[1][2]

1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms[3].

The terminology of authoritarianism, right-wing authoritarianism, and authoritarian personality tend to be used interchangeably by psychologists, though inclusion of the term "personality" may indicate a psychodynamic interpretation consistent with the original formulation of the theory.

And:

The "right wing" in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone's politics, but to psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authorities could have either right-wing or left-wing political views.

Milton Rokeach's dogmatism scale was an early attempt to measure pure authoritarianism, whether left or right. The scale was carefully designed to measure "closed mindedness" without regard to ideology. Nevertheless, researchers found that it correlated with British political conservativism.[7] In a similar line of research, Philip Tetlock found that right wing beliefs are associated with less integrative complexity than left wing beliefs. People with moderate liberal attitudes had the highest integrative complexity in their cognitions.[8]

There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon.[9]

Although authoritarians in North America generally support conservative political parties, this finding must be considered in a historical and cultural context. For example, during the Cold War, authoritarians in the United States were usually anti-communist, whereas in the Soviet Union, authoritarians generally supported the Communist Party and were opposed to capitalism.[10] Thus, authoritarians generally favor the established ways and oppose social and political change. Hence, even politics usually labeled as right or left-wing is not descriptive. While Communism in the Soviet Union is seen as leftist, it still inspired the same responses. This leads to questions over what makes various ideologies left or right, but that is another discussion.

Much more at the Wikipedia link.

Also, an interesting read would be Robert Altemyer's The Authoritarians (available online).

Also available is Robert Dean's book which is based on Robert Altemyer's work called Conservatives Without a Conscious.

So, when something like Wikileaks challenges conventional tradition or authority, people with RWA personalities are conditioned and motivated to defer to that tradition or authority - radically coming to its defense and ready to oppose the challenging threat.

What's funny is that some of these people call themselves "libertarians" - which is incredibly ironic.

This, of course, is not to say that all right-wingers are "authoritarians." Some are libertarians, but also would not call for the assassination of Julian Assange. Some do challenge conventional and established authority such as Ron Paul with whom I disagree with economically, but we both share common libertarian roots.

Originally Posted by Agentorange

...But there's one thing that has surprised me in all of this, it's really more of a question for those who feel that Assange should be murdered or jailed,..

What is all this nonnense about posters calling for him to be killed? That is a very serious accusation to make on a forum like this. I have seen other posters make the same claim about posters - but where all the legions of posters who are actually saying this?

If you are going to toss off an accusation like that, please make it clear who - exactly - you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Agentorange

Well, I mentioned one of the things in my original post, namely that the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were according to unreleased figures higher than the official released figures.

If it's true - then yes, it is terrible.

But wikileaks is not an infallible, unquestionable, unimpeachable source of absolute truth.

That is how it is being used by those who do not have a high opinion of Americans - they now have a source that is beyond criticism and true in every detail.

In reality, this is a vast collection of facts, rumours, evidence, opinions, conjecture, prediction and guess. Yet you and others assume it is a compass pointing to absolute truth.

Please note this isn't a dig at Bush or Obama, being British I have no axe to grind for either side

Of course....


Also - the last I heard Britain was also involved in Iraq. Or perhaps that has slipped your mind...

It's always so much easier and infinitely more enjoyable to give smug speeches about Americans.

Originally Posted by Agentorange

I've been reading the various threads about wikileaks here for a while, and it's obviously a subject that arouses strong feelings from both sides. There are those who think that Assange is the devil incarnate and who are calling for his death, in the other corner are those who feel he's the second coming of christ and can do no wrong with various shades of opinion in between.

But there's one thing that has surprised me in all of this, it's really more of a question for those who feel that Assange should be murdered or jailed, so here 'tis : Why are you not displaying the same levels of anger, indeed any anger towards your own goverment ? One thing that wikileaks has revealed is that the US government has at best been, how shall we say, economical with the truth. At worst it has outright lied by giving out false casualty figures about civilian deaths in Iraq and Afgfhanistan and in various other matters it has been less than honest to you the citizens of the USA.

Now reading and talking to people here, my understanding is that the US government is the servant of the people of the USA, not the ruler. The things it does, the people it kills are done and killed in your name. So your servant has been consistently lying to you.....so where's the anger ?

Amidst the calls for Assange to be killed why do I not see calls for politicians to be impeached ? Amidst the calls for Assange to be jailed why do I not see calls for military personnel to be dishonourably discharged?

If you can work up enough anger to call for Assange to be killed for telling the truth....why can you not work up the same levels of anger for those who have been lying ?

I'm with Ron Paul on this one; we're killing the messenger over the bad news.

It's just a strawman to say that Assange has compromised national security. The people who leak this stuff to him are responsible, as well as the gov't.

What has caused more death, the leaks or the warmongering efforts?

The bigger question involves US intelligence. This is the kind of information that tens of billions of dollars buys? Cables that are gossip-talk about foreign leaders? Cables telling us about the VP of Afghanistan travelling into the UAE with over $50 million in cash and they let him through? Private contractors and sex with underaged boys?

I think the reason why Assange is demonized by many in America is a result of the country needing to have a scapegoat less it actually looks within and learns lessons about it's own mistakes.

You can't charge a foreign journalist for publishing information that he did not steal, but the US gov't has such a fragile ego and has been embarrassed by the fact that we now all know just how empty-headed it is when it has come to the neverending warmongering and having very little sway in the world.

The US is just a country that doesn't like to reflect upon it's own actions. While many scapegoat Assange, I stand on the side of those who are left scratching their head at a gov't that spends untold billions on security only for a 20 yr old to have such amazingly open access to all that information.

Power always comes under fire, deservedly so or not.

& as for making smug speeches about Americans - well, of course. It doesn't help that we make it so easy for everyone. Anyone with a sense of history will find a lot to be smug about in terms of the US obsession with what's right here in front of us just now, now, now!

It's as if the diet of half-hour sitcoms & 15-second commercials has trained us - like Pavlov's infamous dogs - to salivate @ the ring of the bell.

Oh, wait, there's a commercial. Time for a potty break, something to drink, maybe a nice snack ...

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

...I think the reason why Assange is demonized by many in America is a result of the country needing to have a scapegoat less it actually looks within and learns lessons about it's own mistakes. ...

It's too much, Jason. It's over the top. The self-rightous posturing and posing in your posts has become hysterics.

You write mountains of words in hundreds of very long posts with one theme: the evil of Americans. It never stops. Asssange is mannah for people like you. You can scream: "Yes! Americans really are uniquely and profoundly evil! I have been right all along!"

It's just too much. When the hysterics about Americans reaches this levelof lunacy , it turns into a cartoon based on camp humor.

You guys want the truth?

There’s another irony here, too. The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones.

Yet those on the hard left are usually the loudest critics of America imposing its own values, its own way of doing business, and its own culture on other countries. For better or worse, in many parts of the world there’s a big difference between what government officials are prepared to do publicly and what they’re prepared to say and do privately. We may wish it otherwise, but those are the realities faced by U.S. officials. The hard left, so quick to demand that America accept other countries’ political systems, now seems blind to the fact that other governments want to have the right to say one thing in public and a different thing in private. By respecting that difference, American diplomats are doing their job. Surely the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, would prefer for Arab leaders to be as honest and open and transparent as we are in our country. Until such democratic values come to the Arab world, however, we have to work with what we’ve got. U.S. diplomacy has been damaged, not destroyed; it will recover after a time. But for now, Wikileaks is making diplomacy’s task a whole lot harder.

How Wikileaks Undermines American Diplomacy And The Left's Own Foreign Policy Goals. | The New Republic

Originally Posted by Tim

What is all this nonnense about posters calling for him to be killed? That is a very serious accusation to make on a forum like this. I have seen other posters make the same claim about posters - but where all the legions of posters who are actually saying this?

If you are going to toss off an accusation like that, please make it clear who - exactly - you are talking about.

Cartouch100

For the record, I think that not only is the Lieutenant Colonel right in this case, but I'm ashamed and angry that more people aren't saying that Assange should be killed for his leaking. After all, how much blood does Assange have on his hands for motivating terrorists to kill all those people that his leaked cables have identified as working against terrorists?"

Steve

It's probably time to send a squad after the fuck-sticks at Wikileaks. If what they're doing even remotely threatens operations, they need to be dealt with as foreign combatants are most often dealt with... "

and

But that, of course, doesn't negate the fact that the fuckers involved in this should be aerated...

tsquare

I ask for not the first time... why are these guys (guy?) still alive?

hairballxavier

I think they should capture them alive and get medieval on their asses with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch until they turn in the mole who gave them access to the classified documents. Then shoot them.

Now that took 5 minutes....do you really need me to go through all the threads here and print all the relevant quotes and names ?

Originally Posted by Tim

If it's true - then yes, it is terrible.

But wikileaks is not an infallible, unquestionable, unimpeachable source of absolute truth.

That is how it is being used by those who do not have a high opinion of Americans - they now have a source that is beyond criticism and true in every detail.

In reality, this is a vast collection of facts, rumours, evidence, opinions, conjecture, prediction and guess. Yet you and others assume it is a compass pointing to absolute truth.
Of course....


Also - the last I heard Britain was also involved in Iraq. Or perhaps that has slipped your mind...

It's always so much easier and infinitely more enjoyable to give smug speeches about Americans.

Tim, I appreciate that wikileaks is not an infallible source of information, nor do I take what they say without a pinch of salt. But the points I was making Ie civilian casualties etc were culled from US political and military sources, the documents are out there for all and sundry to read.....and nowhere has the US government come out and denied the contents, or claimed it's been made up, or falsified.

I know Britain is involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and if it turns out my government has been doing the same I'll be critical of them as well. The reason the topic of conversation is the US is possibly because the site is called....US politics online

As for axes ( grinding thereof ) why the :rolleyes:

I didn't vote for either side ( I can't, can I ? ) so your point has rather passed me by.

Seems like this is a question about Julian Assange, not wikileaks. People who continue to conflate the two are really missing the boat, IMO.

Andrew

I have no interest is seeing Assange killed, and I'm not particularly interested in seeing him jailed. I do, however, believe that what he and others at Wikileaks are doing is espionage. Many people have said that Wikileaks has simply made available information that was given to them and, therefore, are not guilty of espionage. The trouble with this is that you can not argue that they aren't seeking out classified material. It's the basis of their organization. As such, they're guilty of espionage. Espionage is a criminal act.

I have nothing to say on any specific leaks as going to their site to read them would be an attempt to access classified information without proper authorisation. Which is espionage. Which is a crime.