http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/12/20101216182734461961.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/julian-assange-interview-_n_798140.html

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/12/20101216194828514847.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/18/bank-of-america-will-stop_n_798605.html

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/12/20101217224025909634.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?_r=1

 

So I take it you advocate for the punishment of Woodward and Bernstein as well?

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL18Ak01.html

 

Woodward and Bernstein were journalists first. They investigated a corrupt group of political insiders, who were tied to a President of the US. Through the course of their four year investigation they uncovered many illegal and or improper activities associated with the administration. Most of their leads came from anonymous sources, investigated by hard work.

There is no doubt in my mind, that similar results would have been produced with almost every preceding administration. Their findings changed the way many things are done in national politics, most, but not all, for the better.

Wikileaks has no such journalistic foundation. Someone steals, then leaks what were considered as "classified" communications. Assange profits from the distribution of the tidbits.

However, none of them should be punished for their activities, the government officials had better start dealing straight or get better at hiding what should be secret communications.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/wikileaks-founder-we-have_n_799555.html

 

The question of whether Assange meets the definition of "journalist", whatever that definition might be, is entirely academic. Both journalists and whistleblowers are revealing with information the government wants kept secret, and they're both, for the most part, doing it in the public interest. Daniel Ellsberg's actions were entirely illegal, but were, I believe, morally correct. He provided a great service to the American public.

 

Best continuing updated Leaks page I've found

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/usembassyfiles/

 

A very dubious comparison. People who blockade abortion clinics are trying to restrict other people's actions through intimidation and harrassment. How does that compare to exposing the actions of government to public scrutiny?

As for making money, I doubt very seriously that that's Assange's overriding motive.

 

Your comment about Ellsberg didn't specify what crime. An illegal activity justified by a moral stand, both fit the bill.

Then I think you are very seriously naive'.

 

wikilicks founder is busted !!!!!!

 

There's this figure called "Deep Throat" that leaked the *classified documents* to Woodward and Bernstein who revealed the entire situation. They hugely profited from the distribution of the informaiton.


Assange gets his information from anonymous sources and filters through the information to release certain pieces. The documents have revealed numerous illegal/improper activities by several parties.




The only difference is that Fox told you that Assange is not a journalist, thus creating the cognitive dissonance




You lose. Again.

 

It IS tenguy....

 

One of the questions I have is with regards to the leaks. Ok if a government is doing something bad and such, yes I believe it is ones duty to expose that individual and or government to the public eye, but that is not what Assange is doing, and neither will his copy cat sites. Yes I did read, where he supposedly contacted the U.S. State Department and told them hey we have this information, and we are going to let you sit down with us and edit it before we print and or distribute it, somewhat the same as any reasonable "Non-Tabloid Reporter" would do.

But when the State Department told him they would not do that, and told him he was in possession of classified documents and they wanted them back, he told them to go to hell, and would print, publish and distribute as is.

Granted, my government, the U.S. Government is run by a bunch of arrogant idiots, and like I said I believe that if an entity is doing wrong it should be reported, but publishing shit, just to stir up even more shit, it parts of the world that are already inflamed, is not the markings of a true journalist, it is the markings of an anarchist.

Case in point, one more recent leak: To what purpose does it server to post a leak that the Head of state, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen., was providing information to Israel with regards to terrorist activities of the Hammas, in his efforts to help broker some better forms of peace, yet all this does is give ammo to the Hammas (sorry if I may have misspelled) and their growing political power, who is totally pro kill Israel, granted I am no big fan of Israel, but hell, this is just a prime example of someone who his only agenda is to stir up shit, not help shit.

 

One question: As yet, five months into his incarceration, Wikileaks have offered no money to Bradley Manning's defence fund while Julian Assange, obviously has all the financial backing he needs from a relatively rich website. Wikileaks have declined to name Manning as the source, although, it is in the public domain that he is.

Anyone find this disturbing?