Americans overwhelmingly think that WikiLeaks is doing more harm than good by releasing classified U.S. diplomatic cables, and they want to see the people behind it prosecuted, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.A large majority of Republicans, 81%, see Wikileaks as harmful, and even 58% of liberals agree that it is doing more harm than good. 59% of Americans overall support prosecution of Wikileaks members. Only a delusional 22% see the leaks as positive. It would be interesting to find out how many support violent covert action against Wikileaks, as I and others on the right have advocated.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Majority of Americans Favor Prosecution of Wikileaks
A new poll indicates that 70% of Americans recognize that Wikileaks is harming the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So you advocate violent covert unilateral action as a result of an opinion poll? Mob justice? What about the sovereignty of the UK/Sweden?
ReplyDeleteSo, by your apparent logic, when the US was attacking Iraq and the majority of the world disagreed, would it have been legitimate for assassins from around the world to attempt to decapitate the US government? Or do you think there are different rules for the US and the rest of the world? As I said in another comment on your blog: you can't selectively apply the rule-of-law -- it's all or nothing.
It seems to me that, whatever your platitudes, you really do believe in "might is right", and have no actual ethical basis to your thinking.
"So you advocate violent covert unilateral action as a result of an opinion poll?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I advocated it well before the poll for reasons which I already described in a couple of posts.
"Mob justice?"
Covert action by state forces does not in any way equal "mob justice."
"What about the sovereignty of the UK/Sweden?"
I don't mean with him now in custody. But obviously covert action conducted in other states violates state sovereignty. That's one of the reasons why it is done covertly.
"So, by your apparent logic, when the US was attacking Iraq and the majority of the world disagreed, would it have been legitimate for assassins from around the world to attempt to decapitate the US government?"
Of course not, as this is obviously not in any way analogous tot he situation you describe.
" Or do you think there are different rules for the US and the rest of the world?"
Yes, of course. There are no "rules," except ones states choose to voluntarily bind themselves. States act in their own interests. My outlook is based on my opinion as to what is in the best interests of the U.S. I'm not writing as an impartial observer.
"As I said in another comment on your blog: you can't selectively apply the rule-of-law -- it's all or nothing."
Nonsense. There's no such thing as an absolute "rule of law." It doesn't even apply to this situation. Covert actions by their very nature are usually outside the law. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for many to grasp.
"It seems to me that, whatever your platitudes, you really do believe in "might is right", and have no actual ethical basis to your thinking."
I haven't given any platitudes. Since you don't have the slightest clue about the basis for my thinking, given your blind legalistic outlook, I'm unimpressed by your opinion of my ethical framework.
A good quote I read at http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/12/0647203/WikiLeaks-Money-and-Ron-Paul?from=rss:
ReplyDelete"The United States differs from other States only in that it does not overtly tell someone to shut up. It threatens charges. It stays quiet while members of it's government and celebrity punditry call for assassination. It sends a few spooks around to anyone connected with you. It's a base form of terrorism, and differs from the KGB only in that it has to look like an accident if they decide to eliminate you. They like plausible deniability because the miserable pro-authoritarian sycophants like you can pretend that those things don't happen, and you'll continue to support the government regardless of how badly they ignore the laws they are supposed to be following.
Take a look at the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. What is the effective difference of the Chinese government throwing him in prison, and the US leaning on Sweden to bring back trumped up charges so Assange could be detained while they build a bullshit case to do the same thing? We just have better PR."
My opinion is this: you can't claim to support a free market economy unless you support the rule of law and democracy. If you don't support these, then you're actually supporting a regime more like fascism, feudalism or aristocracy.
Naturally I'm real impressed by you quoting some ridicuous anti-American propganda.
ReplyDelete"Take a look at the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. What is the effective difference of the Chinese government throwing him in prison, and the US leaning on Sweden to bring back trumped up charges so Assange could be detained while they build a bullshit case to do the same thing? We just have better PR.""
Another terrible analogy, what a surprise. The difference is that they are completely different cases. Liu Xiaobo is a Chinese dissident in China. Assange is a foreign enemy of the U.S. who is conspiring with U.S. traitors in an attempt to undermine U.S. foreign policy and its war efforts. He's inflicted actual damage on the U.S. Liu Xiabo has merely expressed his opinions. Last I checked, he didn't publish a bunch of stolen Chinese secrets in an attempt to damage China.
"My opinion is this: you can't claim to support a free market economy unless you support the rule of law and democracy. If you don't support these, then you're actually supporting a regime more like fascism, feudalism or aristocracy."
Your opinion is pretty silly and uninformed, since I obviously do support a free market economy and democracy (in the U.S.), and have never written anything otherwise. Advocating actions against external enemies of the U.S. has nothing to do with my support for the free market or U.S. democracy.