The Morality of Julian Assange/Wikileaks

Foreword: You made a lot of very sweeping claims without citing evidence. If you could give examples in the future, it would help the debate.

Though that figure is doubtlessly inflated, it's still virtually nil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Real self-sacrifice. Comparitively few casualties and a post-war economic boom show that half-hearted overseas intervention wasn't exactly selfless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom..._States#Postwar_prosperity:_1945.E2.80.931973

Whether or not this statement is valid, it's irrelevant. Empires hate empires.

"Don't worry bro, just securing your oil."

Patently ridiculous. The US mercilessly bombs and occupies third-world countries, and this is a fact attested to by most of the people they're "helping." Again, you're not viewing US action objectively.

Chattel slavery was a very stable system.

 

No, you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
52.7B annually.
And much of this is to countries that the US has no strategic reason to aid. For example, the US gave Haiti over 20% of Haiti's GDP in aid in 2010, almost exclusively for humanitarian reasons.

I would not vote for a government that constructed important policy and used much of my money to help people outside of my country while not benefiting those in my country. Obviously the United States puts itself first when constructing its foreign policy, as it and every other sovereign nation should. That being said, the intervention in World War II was primarily based on keeping Europe out of the hands of the nazis and saving innocent lives. The domestic economic boom that followed was more of a byproduct. (Although I do agree with you that post-45 policy has been much more about the economy and power, and much less about saving innocents)

Motivation does not reduce validity or relevance. You still have to look at the consequence of what would have happened had the US not pursued agressive containment.

Shock images aside, the United States does place great focus on securing natural resources, especially oil. However, especially in overt action, great emphasis is placed on aiding local peoples and creating a stable society (increasingly so since the vietnam war).

I was talking about using intelligence resources to protect European, Iraqi, and Afghani governments against very real threats. However, it is important to note that as technology and public awareness have increased, the US has been much more targeted in its bomb strikes and care for civilian casualties has increased dramatically.

Expand on this. I dont understand...

Also, among the "empires" in history, please point out an empire that has expressed as much human care and generosity for foreigners.

For the record, I'm not some diehard patriot or anything, just taking one side of the argument. I agree that the United States has blatantly over-reached in certain cases (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom). Also, back to the original point, I too agree that Assange's actions were moral. I was just wondering if anyone would take the other side of the argument.

 

This is aside from the debate, but that image really ruined my day.

 

A country isn't able to stack nuke's as it pleases, wheather they make it public or not, it's not allowed by the treaty; though, the country could make/test nukes without notifying the public in secrecy.

 

The NPT bans creation, but allows the US and other nuclear powers to hold onto their nukes.

 

Just an analogy for some people to think about. When your little your parents deliberately keep things from you (usually) whether it be something as simple as Santa Clause is real or as complex as them maybe not telling you that your adopted. They do this because they believe that it will save you from pain and/or give you some sort of pleasure in your life that negates their deceit. Many teenagers say they will never be like there parents when they grow up, but, eventually we all grow up and do what we feel is best and often have the same views as our parents. The government is basically the "parent" of the United States Citizen. Most of you on here sound like that rebellious teenager, but if given the chance to be a "parent", you would more than likely have the same views as the government currently has. We are one of the strongest nations in the world and many US teenagers have it better than any other country. This is because of our laws and procedures. Could some things change? Of course. However, I prefer being a first world nation, and am content with letting the people who know what there doing continue doing it. Whether what Julian did or not is morally acceptable has no change on things. He did what he did, knowing it was against the law. We can thank him for believing it was a worthy cause as many of us feel the same, but it's still against the law.

 

What law did he break? He provides the world with information of malicious and otherwise horrible actions taken by governments around the world. You're analogy makes sense for some cases, but in this case the information being withheld is being withheld solely to make sure the government doesn't look bad in our eyes, and in some cases so they can get away with things it's citizens would not tolerate.

 

What law did he break?