I think the part where we betrayed our allies was when we stole from them, (Hillary Clinton and Condeleeza rice asking to steal our allies credit card numbers) and back stabbed them, you seem to think its when they found out. Nothing quaint about loyalty, that shit is timeless, too bad for America our officials don't subscribe to that. You don't get it. Everyones outraged that they got caught!They make a case that "everyone else" does it and they should be able to do it, and lie about it with impunity. Wikileaks exposed betrayal, of allies and of trust, but those betrayals had already occurred.
As for the first amendment: it isn't a magic sheild against espionage. You're welcome to report on the fact that something was stolen, and even to characterize the nature of the theft. That's reporting. Completely protected. Providing the content of classified documents to hostiles who'd love to have them? Working with the person who steals them in order to arrange for storage of those documents and the means to convey them? Not protected.
-- Looks like you still haven't read the 1st Amendment. And I was kind enough to post a link and everything, well... you can lead a horse to water...
I am just aglow with your interpretation of the 1st amendment, lets find one from a Supreme court justice to juxtapose against it
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
Justice Black, discussing how he voted in the Pentagon paper case.
It seems as though, as before, an unrestrained press exposing government deceit. Assange is telling the people the Emperor has no clothes on, and they always hate it when you do that.
"Dealing" with hostile foreign states, diplomatically, is not the same as helping someone in posession of stolen government documents find a way to best spin their publication. You know the difference, and you're trolling on this subject. The only dealing with Assange on this topic is going to be as it relates to prosecutorial wheeling and dealing.
I will refer you to all of the Mob informants that we have allowed to commit murder, actual 1st degree murder who we "cut a deal" with and then provide a life of leisure for in the WPP. The fact, however, that you actually seem to believe that the gov't chose moral high ground instead of trying to save the lives of Americans who they previously claimed were in imminent danger. It seems a little harsh to those Americans doesn't it? "We were going to help you but we needed to prove a point on the internet"
"Assange stole" etc.
You've obviously missed my immmediate follow up where I said that was a c/p typo, and corrected to the word "published." Though, indeed, we may find that Assange's arrangements with Manning make him quite the accomplice, in the traditional sense.
- I concede this point
Could you also please provide concrete details of persons harmed
Can you please name the persons harmed when a drunk driver races down the highway at 100mph? Or is it totally cool to commit that crime, and only uncool if you actually run into somebody? Regardless, Assange - in only the first 220 documents out of 250,000 - has deliberately identified an Iranian ex-pat industrialist, with sympathies towards and support for the opposition inside Iran (where his family lives), as the source of intel about Iran's international industrial sources. I'm sure you think that the Mullahs would never allow harm to come to anyone who opposes their regime (other than the occasional family arrests, shootings, hangings, and that sort of thing, on political grounds), but that sort of reckless divulging of sensitive info - just so that Assange can keep milkiing that press coverage he so hungers for - is complete asshattery.
-This last bit bravely shows a misunderstanding of both law and rhetoric.
Uhmmmm- If a drunk driver kills someone then yes, I can identify them. If they drive drunk and don't kill anyone then they are charged with something different. Because the crime is different, although when the only tool you ever use is a hammer, soon everything starts looking like a nail right? Aside from that having nothing to do with my question and your only actual response being an Iranian of dubious loyalty who may or may not have been harmed, you still haven't answered my question.
THEY are supposed to work for US, not the other way around
Yup. And as they're working for me, doing things like law enforcement, diplomacy, counter-espionage, transporting nuclear materials, running combat operations, administering witness protection programs, and so many other things, I fully expect that some of what they do, in my employ, must involve non-public information. I don't want Mexican drug cartels to know the home addresses of ICE agents' children. I don't want North Korea to have the encryption keys protecting communications we share with South Korea. In their capacity as my employees, some local, state, and federal agencies need to be able to do some things that aren't Googleable. You know this, but choose to characterize all covert activities as lies. That you can't grasp the contextual differences, or are too trollish to admit to them, makes this a pretty silly conversation indeed.
I certainly would never classify all covert activities as lies, this accusation, as with so much of what you write, is completely baseless and untrue. Please provide a reference.
Add lastly, No, the horror of war is certainly not clear. I feel bad that you think it is. America causes a 9/11 every day in Afghanistan. Thats how many civilians we kill. Even now I am impressed with how the media is in the governments pocket, helping to steer the conversation away from the contents of the cables and onto the distributor. WHere is your outrage at the editor of the NYT? They link to all Wikileaks.ALL.OF.THEM. The feds took them to court over stuff like this in the 70's and lost. Oh no, this conversation is has been engineered... these aren't the droids you are looking for
Do you know what the greatest deterrent to war is? The fact thats its so terrible
Really? You think that the horror of war isn't clear? That tens of thousands of military people talking to friends, family, journalists, film makers, etc., aren't clearly enough explaining what it's like to face close urban conflict, or to have to deal with jihaddis holding school kids as human shields? We are absolutely saturated with information about how horrible such conflicts are. You know that. We all do. That has nothing to do with Manning being a grandstanding drama queen, or with Assange cravenly exploiting him for brownie points with his groupies.