The problem with doing it by his beliefs strays into the realm of moral relativism. What if his beliefs are based on a lack of information or knowledge? What if he is a lunatic and his beliefs are anti-social? If what he is exposing is criminal behavior, that would be one thing. But diplomacy has always had a part that deals with unsavory characters. At one point the US even dealt with Saddam as an ally - and probably didn't like it.
Interesting possibility, and not outlandish, considering the BS "intel" in the run up to the Iraq invasion.
Leftwing Slate website not please with her: "Diplomacy is about face, and the only way for other nations to save face will be to give them Clintonâs scalp."
Yeah, I suggested that a couple days ago, no one agreed though. It's as old as the hills, straight out of the Art of War, one of the last chapters called 'on the use of spies'.
I voted for "hero". Hillary Clinton called the recent release of diplomatic messages, "an attack on Americaâs foreign policy interests." Well, I'm tired of the way my country's foreign policy interests as seen by our politicians always amount to finding some excuse to wage war on some other country. So I'm all in favor of getting the truth out. Powerful people with something to hide are the ones who see Assange as a villain, not me.
Kind of an apples and oranges thing. However, I think Ellsberg was serious about trying to do the right thing, whereas this Assange fellow has a definate political agenda. Yes, it all ends up being politics, but you know what I mean. There isn't an honest government on the planet, but at some point the government has to trust the people who handle the top secret stuff to keep their mouths shut. Like it or not, everything just can't be for public consumption. It's niave to think otherwise, and expect something other than a continuous shit storm of problems.
Its wise to inspect past the obvious but then consider these releases as just journalists making noises like journalists and any effects as simply a byproduct of said releases empty of deliberate intent. The video of the helicopter fire couldn't have been something any agency or individual who Assange might be inolved in a conspiracy with would have wanted leaked even if only to create interference. I could be wrong, underestimating the extent of setting up the public. You've gotta consider, they know everything you know or might think.
No they'd be a villain! (Kind of like the way the government barged into my life and took a massive dump all over everything I was trying to do two years ago.) ... but then, if <i>someone else</i> were to break into that villain's office and fuck with all of <i>their</i> shit, I might be inclined to look kindly upon that person out of spite... and that person is Assange. That's how <i>I</i> see it, anyways.
Thanks for the honest answer. Let me ask you another question. You appear to be a man who has been and is sympathetic to the Blue Collar guy and Labor Unions etc, etc, yet in his heart of hearts leans to the right of the political spectrum. Mind you I didn't say kook job right winger simply that you appear to lean right. Given that how do you feel about Assange's statement that Wikileaks next target is the "ecosystem of corruption" in the corporate world and that they will release documents from the banking and pharmaceutical industry? Keep in mind the Wikileaks genie will never go back in the bottle. The Wikileaks phenomenon is not unique to Assange, he's just the public face of many very smart, very technical Anarchist/Libertarian types. Some of whom are currently setting up distributed competitor sites. If they chose to any three-letter agency anywhere in the world could whack Assange tonight but Wikileaks and its soon to be competitors would go on unaffected.