WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Osso wrote: This would mean killing fewer terrorists in the short run,

Quote:

Osso wrote: This would mean killing fewer terrorists in the short run,

So you think that it is okay for the US government to engage in these war crimes, eh, Osso?

Isn't it wonderful to live in a country where you have to hide health problems in order to gain employment

err... I think you're a tad confused. That quote is from the link osso posted that I quoted, and it means just the opposite.

But how do you teach meekness and humility to NFL fanatics?

At least we try not to now. That's an improvement. In the right direction.

but like everything we have compared to you, it's on a smaller scale.

Do you really think they will go viral?

You don't know me at all, JTT. I have spoken re my opinions on a2k but they are hard to search, and I don't keep repeating them. My foremost point of view is anti bomb, any bombs by anyone or any country. My father was a honcho (head of photo) in the 40's bomb test times, and I may be his full opposite, though I understand that he was a tireless patriot re his duty as he saw it. Well, he was tired, too. I'm not so different from him, but our ideas, if we could talk now, would likely diverge (though his view across the years would be interesting - it might be he who would have become more like me. He died in '68); I'll add he was the first person I knew who was against the vietnam war... like, immediately.
Way before others.

Assange has repeatedly stated that his efforts are not to encourage governmental transparency but to disrupt and shut down government operations.

I don't doubt that he believes his efforts are targeted only at operations which work against the best interests of the governed, but then he has acknowledged that, for him, "collateral damage" to innocents is unfortunate but acceptable in the advancement of his mission. This acknowledgment was made for "collateral damage" that encompassed physical injury and death, do you think he would shrink from invasion of privacy?

Can anyone be confident that Assange won't decide that the release of massive amounts of information relative to personal health records or financials, despite the possibility for "collateral damage," is a good way to achieve his goal?

Even if we accept that his mission is foundationally legitimate, why should we trust him to decide upon the appropriate targets?

He charges governments with control and mainpulation of information to serve their interests and intentions. Isn't he guilty of the same crime?

It is a goal of anarchists to bring the machinary of government to a grinding halt. To convince the governed that not only can they not trust their governments, they cannot rely upon them.

Having obainted[sic] [the word is 'obtained'] the hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents, he didn't simply provide the whole world with total access to his entire database. He developed and is executing a plan for periodic and select releases based on timing and subject matter and employing chosen publishing sources.

What precisely his plan is, I certainly can't say,

but there is a plan and there are motives and manipulation. I don't know why we should feel more secure with him having the information to dispense as he sees fit, as opposed to our governments.

Those of us who are citizens of democratic nations have had far more of a say in the appointment of governmental keepers of this information than in the selection of Julian Assange as the private keeper.