dagblog - Comments for "Beyond Irony: Assange's lawyers cry foul over leaking"

For me the takeaway, the

Ramona — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:10:14 +0000

For me the takeaway, the bottom line, the conundrum, the slippery slope even, is this:

If you make it your life's mission to force everybody to live in glass houses you can't be whining when you have to live in one yourself.

Canuck,Assange's mistake was

David Seaton — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:14:10 +0000

In reply to So the accusations surfacing

Canuck,
Assange's mistake was to take the bait and turn himself or let himself be turned into the poster boy for the data-dump. "Outing" the State Department, using Army personel is the ultimate in hardball. If he had done it to the Russians he would have died of plutonium poison and if he had done it to the Israelis his body would probably never be found. Assange is counting on the Americans not being as rough as the above mentioned... big mistake, we're just more hypocritical.

Your insults are no more

Donal — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:10:32 +0000

In reply to How many times does a simple

Your insults are no more convincing than any insults ever are. Your argument seems to be that since some privileged people can advance their agendas, and possibly cause pain and grief, by selectively leaking with impunity, that the world will be a better place if anyone can use WikiLeaks to do the same - no matter what the fallout. I guess you see WikiLeaks as a balance of power. I see WikiLeaks as a weapon that can backfire.

How many times does a simple

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:33:39 +0000

In reply to In my eyes, anyone passing

How many times does a simple truth have to be put in front of you before you recognize it.There are many clear differences that you either refuse to acknowledge or are incapable of understanding.
One leaker does it for what he believes is a good purpose and he takes a risk doing it with no chance of benefitting directly. He tries to be anonymous so as to stay out of jail. The other leaker does so with impunity and this impunity has made it become business as usual to selectively leak information for underhanded purposes. They can even choose to do it in a room crowded with reporters and simply say "off the record" or "I ask to not be identified". They do it every single day and they never get thrown into solitary for it.
I am starting to be embarrassed that I continue to bother responding to your ridiculous stand on this issue.

Neither do I, Donal. Which

Ramona — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:31:33 +0000

In reply to In my eyes, anyone passing

Neither do I, Donal. Which is why I sort of felt the need to post the article. Plus, it made me laugh.

In my eyes, anyone passing

Donal — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:09:23 +0000

In reply to Do you take this all as a

In my eyes, anyone passing info to WikiLeaks is no different than a government official leaking info to the press. Yes, it's illegal in both cases, but it's intended in both cases to be anonymous and untraceable. From what I can tell, people that like what WikiLeaks is revealing like WikiLeaks and turn cartwheels trying to justify it. When however, a leak takes place that they don't like, they are horrified. I don't see much consistency in that position.

Do you take this all as a

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:46:05 +0000

In reply to Same goes for anyone passing

Do you take this all as a last word contest? I say that the conscience of the leaker does not alter the legality of the action and you reply:

"Same goes for anyone passing info to WikiLeaks, unless, like Manning, he gets himself caught."

Your reply does not make any sense.
Also, where did the original post go? It does not show up anywhere on my page view except in the recent comment section.

Same goes for anyone passing

Donal — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:20:17 +0000

In reply to SO. WHAT? The Swedish leaker

Same goes for anyone passing info to WikiLeaks, unless, like Manning, he gets himself caught.

SO. WHAT? The Swedish leaker

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:04:31 +0000

In reply to Perhaps the Swedish leaker

SO. WHAT? The Swedish leaker could hold high moral ground or he could be completely perverse in his intentions. The legality of what he did would not be any different either way.

Perhaps the Swedish leaker

Donal — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:17:20 +0000

In reply to "The purpose of WikiLeaks is

Perhaps the Swedish leaker considers it an act of conscience to leak Assange's info. Anonymous leaking cuts both ways.