The Moral Standards of WikiLeaks Critics
Information Clearing House / Glenn Greenwald
07-Dec-2010 (2 comments)

 Time's Joe Klein writes this about the WikiLeaks disclosures: I am tremendously concernced [sic] about the puerile eruptions of Julian Assange. . . . If a single foreign national is rounded up and put in jail because of a leaked cable, this entire, anarchic exercise in "freedom" stands as a human disaster. Assange is a criminal. He's the one who should be in jail. Do you have that principle down? If "a single foreign national is rounded up and put in jail" because of the WikiLeaks disclosure -- even a "single one" -- then the entire WikiLeaks enterprise is proven to be a "disaster" and "Assange is a criminal" who "should be in jail." That's quite a rigorous moral standard. So let's apply it elsewhere: What about the most destructive "anarchic exercise in 'freedom'" the planet has known for at least a generation: the "human disaster" known as the attack on Iraq, which Klein supported? That didn't result in the imprisonment of "a single foreign national," but rather the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent human beings, the displacement of millions more, and the destruction of a country of 26 million people. Are those who supported that "anarchic exercise in 'freedom'" -- or at least those responsible for its execution -- also "criminals who should be in jail"? >>>

recommended by Afshin Ehx

Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Cost-of-Progress

Yeah? I got a better question...

by Cost-of-Progress on

What about the most destructive anarchic exercise in 'freedom" the planet has known for at least 15 generations: the National  disaster known as the Islamic Revolution?

Painful that you care about Aragh, while Iran is regressing everyday.

___________

IRAN FIRST

____________


default

The Iraq Question

by NajafVisitor on

What about the most destructive "anarchic exercise in 'freedom'" the planet has known for at least a generation: the "human disaster" known as the attack on Iraq ...?

 Damn good question.