A Nobel Peace Prize for Julian Assange?

[Foxfyre]

DISCLAIMER: I am not--repeat NOT--offering a personal opinion on Julian Assange here though I do have a personal opinion about all that which I will probably share later.

But I will admit that this Paul Wachter piece did make me back up and rethink some of my opinion about all that:

Dec. 10) -- "[T]he Nobel Committee has chosen someone who has been an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and nonviolent means, including his support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law." -- statement by President Barack Obama on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

There is now another imprisoned "courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and nonviolent means" whom the Nobel Committee should be considering for next year's award: Julian Assange.

Through a series of leaks -- first of military documents concerning the United States' ongoing and doomed efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq; now of cables unveiling a hodgepodge of diplomatic duplicities -- Assange's organization, WikiLeaks, has offered up an unflattering portrayal of U.S. foreign policy.

It's the first real stab at a correction of the crusading, lawless Bush years that President Obama, the impulsive Nobel Committee's designee two years ago, has perpetuated.

The recent diplomatic leaks -- a mere 960 or so so far, all first published by the world's most prestigious newspapers -- have revealed, among many other outrages:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's illegal (under the U.S.-signed 1961 Vienna Treaty) ordering of her diplomatic employees to spy on United Nations personnel.

A U.S. policy that precludes U.S. personnel in Iraq from investigating atrocities committed against civilians.

Saudi Arabia is still the major funder of al-Qaida and an advocate for an "Arab army" to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But rather than calling for congressional investigations, American politicians and a largely sycophantic press have targeted the messenger.

Sarah Palin's recent tweets implicitly call for Assange's assassination. Without any evidence, Jeffrey Kuhner of the right-wing Washington Times writes that the leaks could lead to many Americans and their allies "being killed, tortured or targeted by insurgents." And that's also the White House line. (Also note that the administration is showing much more resolve going after Assange than Osama bin Laden, who killed 3,000 Americans and is probably, at this moment, happily sipping a cup of tea.). . .

More here:Opinion: Julian Assange Should Be Considered for Nobel Peace Prize

So what do you think? Is Assange a villain who is attempting to undermine the security and integrity of the USA? Or is he a hero and a wakeup call for indefensible corruption in government that nobody has the courage to address?

Did the quoted piece make any difference in how you look at this? Or do you see Wachter as being over the top and indefensible in his point of view?

 

[loosecannon]

He's some of both and more.

Compared to the government he's a virtual saint, should be canonized. His leaks regarding war may well be worthy of a peace prize Obama never earned but still received. There is clearly a danger in disclosing sensitive information, but it's pretty mild danger in context. Esp since we have maintained arsenals capable of even accidentally destroying much of the world for decades. Esp considering our nearly constant wars.

But mostly the hypocrisy and danger posed by a government that spys on absolutely everybody but demands secrecy of it's own affairs, affairs that in most cases we have a need to know more about......well that's where assange looks downright saintly in contrast.

But in real life he probably has a few screws loose and a tendency toward sensationalism and gratuitous risk. He may also have an ego disorder. So typical of public figures anymore.

Does it matter if he is a self serving idealist if he does end up promoting a good outcome? Should we blame him if the response to his leaks dampens civil liberties forever?

 

[Foxfyre]

He's some of both and more.

Compared to the government he's a virtual saint, should be canonized. His leaks regarding war may well be worthy of a peace prize Obama never earned but still received. There is clearly a danger in disclosing sensitive information, but it's pretty mild danger in context. Esp since we have maintained arsenals capable of even accidentally destroying much of the world for decades. Esp considering our nearly constant wars.

But mostly the hypocrisy and danger posed by a government that spys on absolutely everybody but demands secrecy of it's own affairs, affairs that in most cases we have a need to know more about......well that's where assange looks downright saintly in contrast.

But in real life he probably has a few screws loose and a tendency toward sensationalism and gratuitous risk. He may also have an ego disorder. So typical of public figures anymore.

Does it matter if he is a self serving idealist if he does end up promoting a good outcome? Should we blame him if the response to his leaks dampens civil liberties forever?

Both interesting questions.

Do you convict Robinhood for theft if he intends only to do good for others with the money? Does a good motive for committing a crime absolve the person of the consequences for the crime itself? How long could we maintain a law abiding and orderly society if we adopted that point of view?

But if the response to another's crime takes away my unalienable right or rights, it is difficult to blame the offender for the loss of my rights.

How many who despise the Patriot Act blame Al Qaida for its implementation?

Yet if you break the law in order to save my life, I will not want you to suffer any consequence for breaking the law.

It is a puzzlement is it not?

 

[loosecannon]

it's new terrain and it dredges up a lot of important issues that will have lasting ramifications.

Not the least of which is what do we do about cyber warriors who attack government and corporate sites that are attacking their associates but not attacking Der Spiegel, The Guardian or the NYT?

 

[Sallow]

He's some of both and more.

Compared to the government he's a virtual saint, should be canonized. His leaks regarding war may well be worthy of a peace prize Obama never earned but still received. There is clearly a danger in disclosing sensitive information, but it's pretty mild danger in context. Esp since we have maintained arsenals capable of even accidentally destroying much of the world for decades. Esp considering our nearly constant wars.

But mostly the hypocrisy and danger posed by a government that spys on absolutely everybody but demands secrecy of it's own affairs, affairs that in most cases we have a need to know more about......well that's where assange looks downright saintly in contrast.

But in real life he probably has a few screws loose and a tendency toward sensationalism and gratuitous risk. He may also have an ego disorder. So typical of public figures anymore.

Does it matter if he is a self serving idealist if he does end up promoting a good outcome? Should we blame him if the response to his leaks dampens civil liberties forever?

IMHO..it won't dampen civil liberties. The more documents I am seeing the more I am getting angry about what our government is keeping from us.

President Bush allowing the Russians a conduit to sell weapons in the Sudan is reprehensible. Even if they did nothing about it..they should have made it public that this was on-going.

 

[Ravi]

The Chinese dissident, IIRC, didn't receive stolen classified information from a traitor so I'm just not seeing the comparison.

btw, have you heard what was released about Dubya today?

 

[Yurt]

The Chinese dissident, IIRC, didn't receive stolen classified information from a traitor so I'm just not seeing the comparison.

btw, have you heard what was released about Dubya today?

no, but i've heard whiny stuffs about obama's admin....

is this a bombshell ravi...i'm so excited....post it!!!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'd support giving him the Peace Prize, even though it's essentially worthless.

 

[Big Black Dog]

My personal opinion is that Julian Assange should be shot on sight.

 

[Foxfyre]

My personal opinion is that Julian Assange should be shot on sight.

Really? And keep it all a secret forever more? Aren't you a little bit curious about what else he has?

 

[Sallow]

My personal opinion is that Julian Assange should be shot on sight.

For what??

 

[Big Black Dog]

My personal opinion is that Julian Assange should be shot on sight.

Really? And keep it all a secret forever more? Aren't you a little bit curious about what else he has?

Sometimes it's best to not open Pandora's box... But, before he is shot we should pull out fingernails until he spills all the beans. Then shoot him.

 

[Foxfyre]

Despite the OP's description of the 'lawless Bush Administration', all I read re that from the Wikileaks is that Wikileaks backed up President Bush and WMD to the hilt including the infamous 'yellow cake' controversy. Of course we didn't see much of that in the mainstream press did we?

So is there some new revelation this week?

 

[Sallow]

Despite the OP's description of the 'lawless Bush Administration', all I read re that from the Wikileaks is that Wikileaks backed up President Bush and WMD to the hilt including the infamous 'yellow cake' controversy. Of course we didn't see much of that in the mainstream press did we?

So is there some new revelation this week?

Nothing backs up Bush's assertions.

 

[boedicca]

Considering that Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, and Obambi all won the Nobel Prize, Assange getting it twould be fittin'.

 

[Ravi]

Despite the OP's description of the 'lawless Bush Administration', all I read re that from the Wikileaks is that Wikileaks backed up President Bush and WMD to the hilt including the infamous 'yellow cake' controversy. Of course we didn't see much of that in the mainstream press did we?

So is there some new revelation this week?

Nothing backs up Bush's assertions.

Nope. And in fact nothing released is really damning...which is why I firmly believe this guy is nothing more than a fucktard looking to make a quick buck at our expense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Despite the OP's description of the 'lawless Bush Administration', all I read re that from the Wikileaks is that Wikileaks backed up President Bush and WMD to the hilt including the infamous 'yellow cake' controversy. Of course we didn't see much of that in the mainstream press did we?

So is there some new revelation this week?

Nothing backs up Bush's assertions.

Nope. And in fact nothing released is really damning...which is why I firmly believe this guy is nothing more than a fucktard looking to make a quick buck at our expense.

How do you know? You haven't read any of the cables.

 

[Toro]

Well, they gave one to Obama even though he didn't do anything other than be a black guy who replaced Bush. And they gave one to Gore because the Europeans absolutely love his cause. And they gave it to that microfinance guy, who creating something - a really neat something - that I still don't understand how it relates to peace.

So why not give it to Assange? It's not like he has done anything peaceful.

 

[Ravi]

Well, they gave one to Obama even though he didn't do anything other than be a black guy who replaced Bush. And they gave one to Gore because the Europeans absolutely love his cause. And they gave it to that microfinance guy, who creating something - a really neat something - that I still don't understand how it relates to peace.

So why not give it to Assange? It's not like he has done anything peaceful.

ftr Obama said the Chinese guy was more deserving than he.

 

[Ravi]

Nothing backs up Bush's assertions.

Nope. And in fact nothing released is really damning...which is why I firmly believe this guy is nothing more than a fucktard looking to make a quick buck at our expense.

How do you know? You haven't read any of the cables.

You've told me what they say.