Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

what do you think of this guy?

He does good work.

I had alot of time for this guy until I founder who some of his backers were. One of the people who offered to put up his bail is a well know anti-semite and has often opposed free speach.

I hate to say it but you are sometimes judged by the company you keep.

He's what the world needs. So for the love of God, don't send him to Sweden (I should know, I'm Swedish)

Let me ask you, EmsyCarter. Does the company he keep change anything he's done? Does it make the documents he has released less valid? Does it make the videos a lie?

Why should he be judged by the company he keep? No one is judged by the company they keep, only by the things they do and don't, the things they say and the things they shut up about.

You aren't defined by who stands by your side.

Originally posted by EmsyCarter
I had alot of time for this guy until I founder who some of his backers were. One of the people who offered to put up his bail is a well know anti-semite and has often opposed free speach.

I hate to say it but you are sometimes judged by the company you keep.

source?

Does it change anything?

about what, the role wikileaks plays for the world? no. about my personal feelings towards asange? it might.

I don't get that. How does who bailed him out change anything about his personality. In addition, EmsyCarter said that one of those who offered to bail him out was this individual.

I don't see how this can't be viewed as an act of good, irrelevant to the history of the person. It's not like it's a different act depending on who does it. Would you view Assange differently if Obama offered to put up bail? If the Queen of England did? If I did?

It's irrational thinking, in my opinion at least.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I don't get that. How does who bailed him out change anything about his personality. In addition, EmsyCarter said that one of those who offered to bail him out was this individual.

well, yes, hence why I asked for a source

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I don't see how this can't be viewed as an act of good, irrelevant to the history of the person. It's not like it's a different act depending on who does it. Would you view Assange differently if Obama offered to put up bail? If the Queen of England did? If I did?

It's irrational thinking, in my opinion at least.

see my sig, EDIT: OR, "they will always tell you about all the good you can do with dirty money".

also, yes, I think it would reflect poorly on Asange were he to accept money from state institutions. Much like I would criticize Applebaum for marketing TOR to autocratic regiemes or cooperating with media censors throughout the world.

Splendid a quote as it is, Nietzsche didn't speak of it as an absolute. That aside, dirty money is still money, and freedom is still freedom. Granted, if he care about his public image, he should be careful who he accept money from, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change what he has done and from what I've seen so far of him, I don't think it'll change what he intend to continue doing.

In the end, the public image is only worth so much. He doesn't do what he does to be loved.

so the end justifies the means?

what would be too far in your opinion? what if he took money from kidnappers or criminal organizations? pedophile organizations? you don't at least see a conflict of interests when it comes to state institutions?

He's a man that gets men killed. We should treat Julian as an enemy combatant and take him to Gitmo. Killing him will only make him a matyr. His source should be made an example: treat him as an enemy combatant or put on trial for treason.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
He's a man that gets men killed. We should treat Julian as an enemy combatant and take him to Gitmo. Killing him will only make him a matyr. His source should be made an example: treat him as an enemy combatant or put on trial for treason.

the us military disagrees with you

Originally posted by inimalist
so the end justifies the means?

what would be too far in your opinion? what if he took money from kidnappers or criminal organizations? pedophile organizations? you don't at least see a conflict of interests when it comes to state institutions?

I do believe that many times, the end does justify the means. I do however not think he should take money from organizations whose business strive through criminal or immoral activity. That would be almost like enforcing the activity itself, for if their money come to use, they have a reason for continuing doing it.

If a nation, a government or state of any kind decide to pay the bill, that's a different matter if you ask me. It's unfortunate what they do with state money, assuming that's what this is about, but it's nothing he shouldn't accept.
If it's from an individual, whose negative record is based on his view on race and right for speech, then I don't really see a problem. If anything, it's an admirable gesture as given the work Assange is actively doing, he could very well end up releasing material that's infringing towards this individual.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
He's a man that gets men killed. We should treat Julian as an enemy combatant and take him to Gitmo. Killing him will only make him a matyr. His source should be made an example: treat him as an enemy combatant or put on trial for treason.

He is a man that release documents that get men killed. He is only indirectly responsible, because he release documents that he hasn't helped create. They were there all along, and it's the reason they exist that get men killed. They were there all along, and the ones really to blame, are those that keep these records, that does the things they do, and that act the way they do.

I hope you think it's a bad thing, the videos that Wikileaks released? Videos that put American soldiers in bad light, and that display highly immoral behavior, borderline evil.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I do believe that many times, the end does justify the means.

you are willing to work with Nazis so as to not have to face jail time for a crime you might have commited?

I can see how that would be pragmatic, for you to get free, but it certainly says nothing positive about your character or moral compass, unless "opportunist" or "amoral" are things you feel are good qualities to have.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I do however not think he should take money from organizations whose business strive through criminal or immoral activity. That would be almost like enforcing the activity itself, for if their money come to use, they have a reason for continuing doing it.

ok, but then to take money from a nazi would be to support the way they obtained that money, which includes being a nazi.

I'd imagine a "well known anti-semite" didn't become successful enough to pay Asange's bail in spite of being anti-semetic, but ya, I don't have a link to the story, so I can't say for sure.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
If a nation, a government or state of any kind decide to pay the bill, that's a different matter if you ask me. It's unfortunate what they do with state money, assuming that's what this is about, but it's nothing he shouldn't accept.

well, ok, point a). Based on what you said, directly above this, you need more than just "hand waving" to dismiss the fact that state governments do far more to harm individuals and break far more international laws than do criminal organizations. To do business with autocratic rulers in the middle east is really no different than doing business with a mafia, other than to say, the international community recognizes the "turf" of the former officially, but the latter only through practice. Thus, the dichotomy between "state" and "criminal organization" is either entirely arbitrary, or defined by the actors themselves, and in neither case does your logic of "states good, criminals bad" hold any weight.

b) my point wasn't actually about the hypocrisy outlined above, but much more simple. Asange's stated goal is to release classified information about governments. He requires money to do this. if that money comes from a government, he is now financially pressured against his expressed goal. It is a classic conflict of interests, and obviously I don't have as much faith in the "good-will-of-men" to think Asange can somehow not be affected by such a conflict. basic human psychology. basic.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
If it's from an individual, whose negative record is based on his view on race and right for speech, then I don't really see a problem. If anything, it's an admirable gesture as given the work Assange is actively doing, he could very well end up releasing material that's infringing towards this individual.

actually, we have no idea who this alleged individual is, as nobody has provided a source regarding the issue. I certainly wouldn't be so quick to claim that he is such an altrusit, though its your own foot to put in your own mouth, or do you have a link to share about the issue?

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
He's a man that gets men killed. We should treat Julian as an enemy combatant and take him to Gitmo. Killing him will only make him a matyr. His source should be made an example: treat him as an enemy combatant or put on trial for treason.
Yes, because putting him in jail without trial would not make him a martyr.

He can't be put on trial for treason because he isn't a US citizen...

Originally posted by King Kandy
He can't be put on trial for treason because he isn't a US citizen...

He said "his source".

Oh, missed that.

His source never did anything that Daniel Elsberg didn't... who is commonly considered a hero now.