Basically, in your post, you're asserting that Assange has had no meaningful impact and would be a be a poor candidate for Time's man of the year.
My comment is pointing out that Wikileaks contribution is so impactful that its actually changed US Military recruiting policy and implemented grounds for court marshal should active personnel read it. How does government censorship policy not affect the rest of the country? Would you argue that US military policy doesn't affect the rest of the world?
Yes, I think he would be a poor candidate. The web site he started has had a meaningful impact, he has not. He has been more of a detriment to "his" cause than a boon. Wikileaks could have been a useful tool, but his arrogance is going to get it shut down.
As pointed out by DivideByZero, there's many heinous acts that called an accord of international conference to change the rules of war. These obviously significant events don't occur as a random whimsy. Wikileaks has the potential to affect international laws in much the same way, which I believe is more important than being able to wish happy birthday, impersonally, to a friend in middle school.
If anything the conduct of soldiers in Iraq has been under more scrutiny than any other conflict in history. The acts of the SS or the NKVD have brought about changes in international law, not a US chopper pilot. You're blowing the impact of that video way out of proportion. After Mai Ly, etc, how is that going to make people even more outraged? BTW you notice how you keep using Wikileaks in your posts instead of Assange, you're proving my point.
Please don't put words in my mouth by implying my views are mythical and I feel Americans are the "good guys". Surprise or lack there of is not the issue here. It's the ability to make public the cover ups and indiscretions of those with power. The fact that we are just human beings and inclined to fault is all the more reason why Wikileaks and other checks and balances are so necessary and important.
My point was that there was nothing that shocking in those cables. Only the most naive of people would really be shocked at their content, and IMO those are people who have a mythologized view of America. If you were surprised at what you saw then in my opinion you are naive. So their impact is not as great as you would make it out to be.
This is the most disappointing part of your post. You're blatantly lying and slandering Assange. He did not force sex upon anyone. During consensual intercourse his condom broke, in Sweden it may be a crime if a condom comes off during consensual relations.
Were you in the room? According to the mainstream news I read, one woman asked him to put on a condom and he refused (which can be considered rape by some people) and the other was asleep when he had sex with her (which is definitely rape). Now if you'd like to point me to other web sites I would gladly read their version. So I am not lying and slandering, I am repeating things I've read on BBC and CNN. If they're wrong, take it up with them.
Your comments here show a clear bias against Assange and draw into question any merit in your previous posts.
If we were talking I'd be wondering how you could keep a straight face and say those words. Yeah I don't like Assange. I think he's some kid with a screwed up childhood who wants attention and doesn't care how he gets it. But talk about not being objective, take another look at your post. You write like he's your best friend. Have you met him? Do you know him? Or are you just idealizing him because he has championed a cause that you believe in (hm...maybe that was his idea all along).
I don't have a problem with WikiLeaks, I have a problem with him. My reasons are valid enough, and I'm not in the minority. If anything related to this situation should be Person of the Year, it should be the web site.
By Assange's antics, are you referring to the release of a military video showing the killing of innocent civilian reporters and subsequent flee from American authorities? The attempts of American authorities to arrest and extradite Assange? Perhaps the need for Assange to encrypt and distribute further damning evidence in an attempt to protect himself from assassination?
Are you referring to the edited version of the video he released or the full one. If you're gonna leak stuff, leak it all, not just the portion that suits you.
By his antics I mean the way he has been acting. He's making it about him, not the site. Why does he keep such tight control of the site and the information? Why are people starting a rival site? And spare me this martyr stuff, if anyone really wanted him to be dead he'd be dead.
