Fun Fact: In the US it is legal to donate via paypal to the KKK, but not too wikileaks.. For years a financial blockade has been put up to try and stop wikileaks. Paypal, Visa and Mastercard have all been ordered to intervene in transactions too wikileaks. Then simply steal that money from donaters.. Should the US continue it's financial blockade of wikileaks? Or let its citizens legally donate to them like they want.. http://beattheblockade.org/ Discuss! I'll be interested if anyone here is seriously against this...
I can't in good faith say they should continue to ruin the man or his business. Freedom of The Press is just that and his site, while devoid of printing presses, does in fact supply news.
The US wishes to justify it's inability to prevent leaking by it's employees by vilifying the recipients, rather than tackle it's own incompetence.
From my point of view they are committing espionage against our country. Why should we help spy's or those that buy their information when we can hinder them?
They are no more engaged in espionage against the United States than a foreign newspaper that receives classified information would be by printing a story about it. Organizations outside the United States have no obligation--under the law or morally--to uphold US information secrecy laws. The people committing the espionage are not the people who report the classified information, it's the people who leak the classified information in the first place. If a US government employee leaks classified information, that employee could in fact be engaged in espionage. The fault lies with the leakers, not with the reporters. Wikileaks doesn't actually steal data from US government servers, they are sent data by "whistleblowers". That puts them in a rather different position than "spy"--they're merely acting as free press ought to act. Why should the United States violate its own constitution by punishing the press for acting as the press should? Punish the people leaking the information, not the press for acting upon information leaked to them. Note; wikileaks does not pay anyone for information. They merely set themselves up to be convenient recipients of that information.
The only way the US government seems to know how to respond when it is exposed is committing more criminal action and more threats. They could just deal with the root of the problem but no they pursue unjust processes.
Thats like saying the pimp is not in any way responsable for prostitution becuase they are not having sex.
A pimps role is to manage the affairs of his whores. To monitor their hours and pay them out of the fees they collect. It probably involves a great deal of violence, especially due to prostitution being illegal or otherwise driven underground where pimps are able to operate. Wikileaks, on the other hand, does not manage the affairs of whistleblowers, nor beat them nor profit at their expense. It takes information willingly given and makes it public. Your analogy doesn't work. However, I think that analogy would be apt when applied to warfare, so I'll file it for use later.
The individuals behind Wikileaks have knowingly and purposely engaged in activities that were detrimental to the American war effort. They should be treated as accomplices to the enemy.
It's the US government's war effort. Do you have evidence that Wikileaks intended to aid "the enemy" or is even a mouthpiece for "the enemy", or is yours just the usual sophistry of the war apologist? By your twisted logic, anyone who voted for Obama (foolishly, I might add) in the hopes that he would end the war, with or without all objectives achieved, and bring home the troops should be treated as an accomplice to the enemy.
Your relationship is the wrong direction. Wikileaks doesn't solicit information, they receive it. You would only have a point if wikileaks directly contacts government employees and specifically requests information for payment. They don't. They simply take what information is willingly offered without asking. The fault here lies with the people leaking secrets, not with wikileaks for reporting on secrets that have been leaked.
By that 'logic', any foreign press that is critical of the United States is giving aid and comfort to the enemy and deserves to have their headquarters bombed.
The people's duly-appointed representatives authorized both wars in accordance with our Constitution, as such, the wars constitute a national initiative in certain respects. Their intent is irrelevant. They purposely and knowingly engaged in activities that would aid and abet our enemies. It's no different than handing them nuclear launch codes. Is that really necessary? Sorry, but how does supporting Obama for President compare to disseminating classified information to the enemy? Can the enemy use those votes to more effectively kill and maim our troops?
Wikileaks disseminated classified strategic, tactical, and operational data to our enemy. Trying to compare that to critical articles in the press is, well, ridiculous.
As usual. The USA preaches about freedom! But when it has to practise it in reality. America always chooses Tyranny!
If people want to donate to Wikileaks, they should be allowed to. Why it is okay for people to donate to a bunch of racists but not okay to make a donation to Wikileaks?
To keep people divided. It's a lot easier to control the sheep when they're busy arguing and fighting one another.
