Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech
JavaJones:
Ah, I see, and I rather disagree. The reason I asked the original question was because I felt it was relevant to the current consideration about Assange. While they are not by any means *the same* situation, there are strong similarities. Ellsberg himself has said so, which to me is rather compelling.
- Oshyan
wraith808:
I don't see the similarities. Assange distributed information that he was given by a third party, and was never bound by national security agreements, and is indeed, not even a citizen. Ellsberg was bound by national security agreements, and only because of that pledge did he have access to the documents, that he then distributed to the third parties. The third parties would be the equivalent of Assange, not Ellsberg.
JavaJones:
The similarities are in how the government is responding. I'm more trying to just understand what your perspective is though. It *seemed* like you were against people breaking their national security agreements to reveal confidential information. Is that correct? If so does that hold true in the case of Ellsberg? I don't think we'll ever totally agree here, I just want to understand what your actual position is, and it seems rather murky at present to me. Maybe just a summary of your stance. :D
- Oshyan
mahesh2k:
I see what Justin Assange is doing as an act of heroism.
--- End quote ---
Personally i don't care if he gets replaced with someone else or gets sued by government, what i care is - Wiki leaks attempt to bring things out. That's what matter more than Justin.
wraith808:
The similarities are in how the government is responding. I'm more trying to just understand what your perspective is though. It *seemed* like you were against people breaking their national security agreements to reveal confidential information. Is that correct? If so does that hold true in the case of Ellsberg? I don't think we'll ever totally agree here, I just want to understand what your actual position is, and it seems rather murky at present to me. Maybe just a summary of your stance. :D
-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 02:34 PM)
--- End quote ---
If you break the law, then you should be prosecuted. The means do not justify the ends. In the case of revelation of legal misconduct, and the inability to report such wrongdoing through the channels that are set up for such things, there can be some leeway. But we are a country of laws, and they are created for a reason. In the case that laws are not broken, such as in Assange's case, it becomes more of a moral issue, than a legal one. Whomever was responsible for the leak is the only one that can be held accountable for breaking their relevant oaths. But Assange made no such oaths, and thus has done nothing of legal consequence.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version