Are the UK/US or other western democracy's any better than North Korea?

[Loren Pechtel]

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

It's not a matter of illegality, but that it shows that his true motives do not line up with his claimed motives.

 

[PyramidHead]

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

It's not a matter of illegality, but that it shows that his true motives do not line up with his claimed motives.

Then he should be free to go anywhere he pleases without harassment from any state power, since motives are personal and not the concern of the government, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You would have many more allies if you'd also attack the power on the right.

I'll say it one last time. Assange revealed information that the public should have, as did Snowden. I smile upon them both for this. That you feel the need to read in that I was attacking the power on the left and not the right speaks more about you than I. They revealed truths that powerful people on both the left and right didn't want out.

As for "allies", I have no use for people who always agree with me on an online forum, nor do I see any point in repeating an already dominant view. That makes for dull pointless threads.

The problem is he also released a lot of information the public shouldn't know. Information that had no use other than to make it easier to attack Americans. If he was being non-selective in what he released that would just be reckless, but he was picking and choosing--that makes it intentional and in my book adds up to attempted murder.

(And if you think there's no information the public shouldn't know post your bank account and credit card details.)

 

[RVonse]

The problem is he also released a lot of information the public shouldn't know.

Who gets to decide that? You?

(And if you think there's no information the public shouldn't know post your bank account and credit card details.)

What kind of information was released, other than Hillary Clinton was a complete fraud and hypocrite? I do not remember him putting out credit card details. And even if he did, that would be minor compared to the good of exposing the other corruption.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(And if you think there's no information the public shouldn't know post your bank account and credit card details.)

What kind of information was released, other than Hillary Clinton was a complete fraud and hypocrite?

Where was that in the doc dump?

 

[RVonse]

(And if you think there's no information the public shouldn't know post your bank account and credit card details.)

What kind of information was released, other than Hillary Clinton was a complete fraud and hypocrite?

Where was that in the doc dump?

The DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Where was that in the doc dump?

The DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."

You said "Hillary Clinton was a complete fraud and hypocrite". It was in the post I quoted. Where did it indicate that in the emails?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is he also released a lot of information the public shouldn't know.

Who gets to decide that? You?

(And if you think there's no information the public shouldn't know post your bank account and credit card details.)

What kind of information was released, other than Hillary Clinton was a complete fraud and hypocrite? I do not remember him putting out credit card details. And even if he did, that would be minor compared to the good of exposing the other corruption.

Operational details of EW systems. That sort of information only has value to those trying to defeat said systems--those trying to kill US soldiers.

 

[Tigers!]

Getting back to the original purpose of the thread.

People are dying to get to the UK (the recent tragedy in the refrigerated truck bear witness to that) but not dying to get to North Korea.
People don't die if they try to leave the UK but they die if they try to leave North Korea.

Sums it up well enough I think.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Getting back to the original purpose of the thread.

People are dying to get to the UK (the recent tragedy in the refrigerated truck bear witness to that) but not dying to get to North Korea.
People don't die if they try to leave the UK but they die if they try to leave North Korea.

Sums it up well enough I think.

Yup. The ultimate vote is with one's feet.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

It's not a matter of illegality, but that it shows that his true motives do not line up with his claimed motives.

The Collateral Murder video, although released while Obama was president, showed activities that occurred while Bush was president.

I know that tribal loyalties trump everything, so if it embarrassed Obama then he must favor the Republicans, even though he also embarrassed Bush. But there is a higher tribal loyalty at display here at the same time. He embarrassed the tribe of "government", and that's unforgivable.