[ExI] pussy riot case

[Kelly Anderson]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 August 2012 23:29, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have not been personally exposed by Wikileaks. I think Assange is a
>> prick.
>
> OK, I stand corrected. There is at least one of us who thinks like you. :-)

I love being the outlier. I am somewhat surprised that there isn't
anyone else here who thinks he is dangerous or irresponsible.

> With regard to his "irresponsibility", I accept the idea that some leaks
> might be consider as "treason", after a fashion, from the point of view of
> those who thought to be entitled to expect some loyalty from the leakers.

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning swore an oath to protect his countries
secrets, then violated that oath. That's a little stronger expectation
of loyalty than "some"...

> But at the same time, those same people not only routinely expose their
> enemies, but sometimes even set a price on their heads. Isn't that "playing
> with their lives"?

Assange himself is not guilty of treason in the sense that he has not
personally committed an offense against the country of his birth.
Nevertheless, he is guilty of promoting and enabling treason.
Similarly, while the people who founded AshleyMadison.com aren't
themselves guilty of adultery, they have certainly promoted and
enabled adultery.

He may be free under US law as I understand it to do what he is doing.
I hope so. But with freedom comes a certain amount of responsibility.
He has not exercised that, IMHO.

The charge against Assange isn't so much "playing with people's
lives", but making all of civilization less safe by outing secrets
that might well be more safely kept behind closed doors. I've heard
his counter argument, and I simply disagree. As you know, I have
serious doubts about the good intentions of governments as a system,
and would love to take them all down a notch or two... I just think
Assange is taking the wrong approach to doing that. I think I actually
agree with his goals.

> You can of course make a difference between the two positions, but this
> strictly depends on the side you are taking in the relevant dispute. And I
> am not aware that Assange owes any especial loyalty to either party.

I don't have sides. But if privacy is guaranteed to individuals, then
why not to some extent extend the same privilege to corporations and
to governments. I guess it already is. Assange clearly has balls the
size of Godzilla, and he was creative and courageous to create such a
dumping ground for the world's secrets. But it is also very clear that
he has ruined at least one life so far, that of Army Pfc. Bradley
Manning. If he hasn't damaged another single person, he clearly stands
partially responsible for the ruination of that young man's future.
And I can't support him if only for that one example.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/19/assange-witch-hunt-release-manning
I find it humorous that Ecuador is providing cover for this guy. I
wonder what would happen if someone dumped a bunch of Ecuadorian
secrets on wikileaks what would happen. Perhaps there is an unofficial
agreement that as long as they protect Assange, they won't have their
secrets revealed.. LOL.

-Kelly