If Julian Assange had gotten his way Osama would be alive and at large

[dennis4868]

Julian Assange claims the government never should keep secrets. So if Julian could have gotten hold of the secret of OBL's location being compromised, he would have told the world and Osama would have had plenty of time to escape.

[Richardo]

1. You're going to get a lot of responses to this post in a jiffy, pop.

:D



The exploding foil pan is a metaphor for GD's reaction.

[arcane1]

2. Quite a leap of logic you have there

if not several!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

53. more of a stretch than a leap. No, more of a stench.

now that I stink about it.

[Marblehead]

OK

:eyes:

[hlthe2b]

3. Well that's some major "contortion"

I hope you took your Motrin....

[xchrom]

4. +1

[dennis4868]

6. But isn't it true....

I mean if the secret location of OBL was released through WickiLeaks a few months back it would have ruined everything in terms of getting Bin Laden, right?

[hlthe2b]

11. First of all, it is Wikileaks (NOT Wickileaks) and further....

I've seen nothing released in REAL TIME.... More to the point, Assange has always offered up his material to both leading members of press and to US security (who have refused) to provide feedback on pressing concerns that might require redaction. Finally, never have I seen Assange actually say he doesn't believe governments should have ANY secrecy.

So, a big FAIL.

[Sheepshank]

31. your condescending remark is the fail on this thread.

#1 who gives a rats ass about a typo, except those that think it bolsters their opinion against the opinion of someone making the typo. Fail.

#2 who the hell puts Assange on a pedestal for determining what info gets released to the public and what doesn't. That doesn't make him noble, it makes him a self indulgent, self important, hypocrit. You are telling us that we should grovel and be grateful that that dick determines what secrets the government is allowed to keep? Fail.

[hlthe2b]

40. I see no one here putting Assange on a pedestal--your fail

[Sheepshank]

41. of course you (the general you) are:

You are permitting and making excuses for a foreigner to make calls of national security for this country. I can't imagine that kind of hero worship is given willy nilly to any Tom, Dick or Harry. c&P from another post on this thread:

Assange gets to decide what is release worthy and what gets to remain a secret? What if that day he had irritable bowel syndrome and was generally pissed off at the world....would that change what he may have released that day?

ETA...how does parsing info to the public make Assange any sort of a hero? He is still no better that the people he claims are hiding the truth? He still makes the decision what info the public gets and what they do not. By his own words. I don't understand the hero worship at all.

[hlthe2b]

49. Many on the "right" felt that way about Daniel Ellsberg after the leak of Pentagon Papers...

A release that surely exposed the lies of the US Government re: Vietnam War and went a long way towards rallying the public and political forces needed to end it. Yet, many on the RW felt then (and still believe) that Ellsberg was a traitor. Some even screamed for his execution. Certainly the countless thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) of young men who were able to live their lives without risk of death or maiming on the battle field, did not think that way.

Ditto, Colleen Rowley and other modern day whistle blowers who, had their message been heeded, might have gone far in preventing 911.

No government is always truthful to its people. When the press fails in their responsibilities to hold excesses in check and to investigate governmental wrong-doing, then a vacuum is created that can be quite dangerous for the survival of a democracy. Are these whistle blowers heroes? Maybe, maybe not. I am not attempting to paint Assange as such. Certainly governmental whistleblowers CAN be irresponsible or even overtly wreckless in terms of the consequences of their actions. Yet, you have presented NOTHING to show that to be the case to date with Assange.

[Wait Wut]

43. +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:
:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:
:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[dennis4868]

32. Assange did say he believes in NO government secrets!

if Assange had his way bin Laden would not have been killed....

[hlthe2b]

39. Got a link for that?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

65. your whole OP is based on a straw man argument - do you hate Assange and Glenn Greenwald both?

I notice your other thread attacking Greenwald.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lamp_shade]

8. hmmmmm

[Enrique]

7. Assange would have withheld that information

like he withheld thousands of documents with such sensitive date, after consulting with the government.

[Sheepshank]

30. that's comforting...

Assange gets to decide what is release worthy and what gets to remain a secret? What if that day he had irritable bowel syndrome and was generally pissed off at the world....would that change what he may have released that day?

ETA...how does parsing info to the public make Assange any sort of a hero? He is still no better that the people he claims are hiding the truth? He still makes the decision what info the public gets and what they do not. By his own words. I don't understand the hero worship at all.

[treestar]

38. Exactly, why shouldn't our elected officials/our own government

decide? Why should it be a foreigner who owes our country no loyalty?

[lamp_shade]

9. I believe you're right. K&R

[frylock]

17. hmmmmm

[Bluenorthwest]

10. I have not heard him 'claim' that at all

and you offer no quote, but your own words as his. These are tactics I abhor.

[luvspeas]

12. I believe you too, and here's proof...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8489866/WikiLeaks-Bin-Ladens-courier-trained-911-hijack-team.html
WikiLeaks: Bin Laden's courier 'trained 9/11 hijack team'

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. You do realize that was only released YESTERDAY

after both bin Laden and the courier were killed.

Seems to me he must have held that back, preserved that information until it could not harm on-going investigations.

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. LOL!

Is that you Rush?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

14. Assange thinks America is the enemy. He might actually be saddened by Bin Laden's passing.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

20. please don't throw me in that briar patch!!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

21. do you support leaking national secrets to our enemies?? Julian Assange does.

[frylock]

52. exposing our military fragging kids from a gunship supercedes your authoritarian needs..

to feel comfortable with war crimes commited for the sake of some false sense of security.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

54. what a crock.

Most of what is being kept from us is common knowledge around the rest of the world. It is only our myopic and lazy media that doesn't bother to report or do real journalism. what he disclosed in the past has not damaged our security one iota, even Gates and Panetta admitted that. What it did do was tear a secretive scab off of a festering sore, and allowed americans to learn things that should never have been secret.

[xfundy]

15. Bullshit.

Bush did plenty to keep OBL from being caught.

Assange is neither monster nor idiot.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. And the Wikileak that I'm waiting for is the proof that Bush, or his cronies, knew

about bin Laden's hideout, and didn't share it with the people who were actually trying to get him.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[damntexdem]

22. Assange vetted what he released.

And did not do so during critical operations.

unrec for pure b.s.

[Sheepshank]

33. I wish I could unrec your post.

Assange gets to do the vetting on info released to the Public? Really? While you mak want to give some dude that authority, I refuse. And what is that Assange does or has or is that I should give him the blue light? You want to place your allegiance on the whim of some stranger? Go for it, but don't you dare tell me or anyone else that skeptisism of his motives, self assigned authority and his decision making should not be questioned. he was not elected by anyone...he'a Trump, nothing more.

[Arkansas Granny]

47. What you said.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. +1

:applause:

[xocet]

23. That is deep cover, Karl. I am impressed by your foresight. n/t

[pmorlan1]

24. unrec

The poster used a falsehood and then speculated what would happen based upon the falsehood. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion about Assange but you are not entitled to make up your own "facts" to fit your opinion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. You are so right, and it's dangerous for all of us. (nt)

:thumbsup:

[Astrad]

26. If gun advocates got their way Bin Laden would still be alive

cause there'd be nothing to shoot him with!

just in case :sarcasm:

[Sheepshank]

35. now this comment is just stoooopid

any nation with gun control has an unarmed military? Gawd!!!

[tekisui]

27. LOLOLOLOL!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The shark, you done jumped it.

[On the Road]

34. If Assange Really Does Believe That

there should be no secrets in counterterrorism operations, you are correct.

I don't know Assange's views on something like this, but most people's opinions have room for exceptions or qualifications. Do you have any particulars that show Assange would have wanted this particular kind of information in the open or would have wanted this particular outcome?

Wikileaks' method was not to release everything without qualification. As I understand it, the material was redacted to keep individuals out of danger, and then turned over to select newspapers. Wikileaks generally only made its own material public after the material was used for publication by one of its downstream partners. They did decide to release the US State Department communications, but other than that, most unpublished material is still being kept under wraps.

[Sheepshank]

36. How is it that you are OK with Assange deciding what can be redacted? n/t

who is he that he gets make those decisions based on what ever his personal motives are? Do you know his personal motives? It appears that he unilaterally has decided that he will decide for everyone else what they get to know. He is not an elected person, so the authority to do so comes only from him. There's a motive here that is not comforting one iota.

[On the Road]

37. The Issue Here Was Whether Assange Supported

the release of information that would have interfered with the counterterrorism effort and allowed bin Laden to escape.

You could easily conclude that from some general statements that Assange made, but the actual practices of Wikileaks allow for a number of ways that leaked information can be kept out of the public eye.

I really don't the answer, but the question is whether you, the OP, or someone else, can support the notion that Assange supported leaks that would have interfered with the bin Laden search. Can you? So far it's been all supposition and inference.

[Sheepshank]

42. ahh I complete understand why you are avoiding the question

The glorification of Assange is just off, and makes no sense that they are patronizing and congratulating this foreigner in making the personal call for the release of US Gov't documents. I don't care if the info he releases is a copy of an old water bill! Who in the hell is he that I should trust his motives on anything?

but let me c&p my response elsewhere on this thread:

"Assange gets to decide what is release worthy and what gets to remain a secret? What if that day he had irritable bowel syndrome and was generally pissed off at the world....would that change what he may have released that day?

ETA...how does parsing info to the public make Assange any sort of a hero? He is still no better that the people he claims are hiding the truth? He still makes the decision what info the public gets and what they do not. By his own words. I don't understand the hero worship at all."

[seaglass]

44. Is it just Assange that you despise or is it whistleblowers in general? n/t

[Sheepshank]

50. HAA HAA...down to making ASS-u-m-ptions. Wrong n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. wait...you were asked a yes/no question, and came back with 'wrong'?

The level of discourse here is barely breathing, dysfunctional.

[Sheepshank]

62. you assumed your question could be answered yes or no

besides, there were TWO possibly mutual exclusive parts to your question. Your question could not be taken seriously considering the manner in which you posed the questions. There was no serious intent on your part to engage in conversation or discussion. The words in your question and the words in your retort were stupid assumptions that there is a yes or no answer to one question. Some of us don't live in black and white worlds, and refuse to be forced into your prepared "boxes".

[On the Road]

51. I Am Not Glorifying Assange or Assuming He is a Hero

The point of the original post was Assange supported releasing information that would interfere with the hunt for bin Laden. It is possible that is true, but it's by no means evident. So far no one on the thread has corroborated that with quotes, actions, or other support. Wikileaks operates in a way that specifically does not allow unlimited publicity for all leaked material.

Discussing his motivation or rights is beside the point. It's not at all clear that the basic assertion is correct.

I'm not one of the several posters who are just claiming it's a stupid idea. Just asking for some evidence.

[Vattel]

59. How dare you directly address the claims made in the OP.

Clearly you should instead be making the outrageous claim that Assange should be in charge of what is classified in the US. That would make it so much easier to ignore the issue of whether there is any support for the main contention of the OP.

[hobbit709]

45. WTF? OVER!

[coccom]

46. Maybe, Maybe Not

But you're forgetting someone actually has to "leak" things in order for W'Leaks to publish it. No military member with access to that kind of info would leak it.

[Auntie Bush]

55. Wasn't Assanage more interested in exposing LIES our Government tells us

than exposing secrets our Gov. holds?

[johnaries]

56. Actually, no. He is an Anarchist. Just look at the document dumps

he's done, with no vetting process at all.

[swilton]

57. Total hyperbole

[Hutzpa]

60. You must have bump your head while waking up from bed.

n/t

[Honeycombe8]

61. Exactomundo, Grasshopper. Your post will not be popular, though. Even tho it's true.

Assange....er, I mean His Holiness....is in the business (and it's big business) of Wikileaks...of leaking information. Any kind of information. That's how he makes his millions. He's not in the business of helping to ensure national security of a nation that he is not even a citizen of.

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. +1

:thumbsup:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

64. Oh I get it, you are attacking Assange and Glenn Greenwald, anyone else?

who next?