Fifth Estate, Third Rail

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Not sure where you are getting at, Bob. Everything is indeed politics, and often choosing a middle-of-the-road argument is a way to try to be apolitical, which seems to be what this movie is doing, although not out of a desire to please both sides (which it could never be able to do anyway) but out of a desire to piss off both sides, thus generating controversy. Plus, most people don't have strong opinions one way or the other about this issue, so they're just being played to. People vaguely in favour of WikiLeaks will say "well at least the movie isn't badmouthing the movement itself!" while those vaguely against will say "well at least it's clear on how much of an evil person Assange is!" and those who are completely on the fence will say "finally someone will tell me a COMPLETELY UNBIASED version of this story!" Or at least this is what they're getting at. (Chelsea Manning's absence wouldn't be too strange from this perspective, since nowadays even saying her name or referring to her as "her" can be considered a political act.)

Because I'm apparently a conspiracy theorist trapped in the mind of a person with common sense, it's come across my mind that Julian Assange is either hamming up as a cult-leader style big personality, or has been thrown under the bus by his peers, so that all controversy would orbit around him and WikiLeaks himself would continue to work in the event of something like that which happened.

NinjaDeathSlap:
I believe that people in positions of power should be held accountable for the mistakes they make, just like any other citizen, and the people who operate Wikileaks stand in a unique position to hold said people accountable when they try to cover up their transgressions. As far as that line of reasoning goes, I have respect for the movement's motives.

However, on the other side of the coin, 'accountability' is exactly the problem I have with Wikileaks and Assange himself. He, and they, take it upon themselves to compile information that is extremely sensitive to the national security of several nations charge with the protection of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. It cannot be overstated just how much power an organisation like Wikileaks can hold; and they hold it, actively revelling in the fact that they are beholden to no rule of law or any body that could possibly enforce one. Granted, they wouldn't be able to do what they do if they were, but that doesn't make the situation any less concerning. They can hold others accountable, but they have no accountability themselves.

Who watches the watchmen? Amirite?

In all seriousness I could at least respect what wikileaks was trying to do if they actually shorted through ALL the files, cherry picked the damning cover-ups, and disposed of the rest of the intel. God knows there are enough shady political deals to keep them in business forever. However, some things need to at least come with context. The Routers people who were fired upon, and ultimately killed, were in the middle of a group of armed insurgents who were firing rounds in the air and in the general direction of the gunship. I'm sorry for their loss, but this is a fucking war and they decided to be in the middle of a group of armed combatants of all places? What if we (the US) had found and dropped a bomb on Bin Laden back when he was doing sporadic television interviews and killed a reporter doing an interview? Would that have been the military's fault? And then there is the inevitability of spies infiltrating wikileaks to see all of the classified information coming in before it was sorted.

But as for the real Julian Assange... I can not respect someone, especially someone who believes themselves to be a media entity, who would reveal confidential sources and put people's lives in eminent danger. And for what? Literally nothing is gained by that information other than the deaths of these people, but maybe that's what he wanted... I just don't know. In short, Julian Assange's life is as meaningless to me as those people's lives were to him.

The Random One:
Plus, most people don't have strong opinions one way or the other about this issue...

I don't think you know how wrong you actually are.

ecoho:
You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

Farther than stars:
A good example of a contemporary issue where the lines are clearly drawn is gay marriage. On this issue, progressives support gay marriage, because it is seen as equalizing and would thus make society more tolerant towards gay people. Conservatives oppose this issue, because they prefer the traditional view of marriage between a man and a woman. So they want to keep the definition of marriage consistent.
That's basically the political aspect of consistency, progressiveness/conservatism in a nutshell.

Except that this is an inconsistent definition of tradition. The idea that a man could only marry one woman is quite a modern thing, a "progressive" change from the days when men had multiple wives, or the days when the King had the right to sexual intercourse with a bride-to-be.

There is inconsistency throughout the spectrum of politics.

Many "conservatives" supposedly want government out of their lives, except when it comes to marriage, religion, the military and abortion. Many "progressives" want a return to nature and organic, local small-farm foods, but are also technophiles who constantly use high-tech products created by global corporations.

Consistency is neither a liberal or conservative value. The very idea of an entirely consistent ideology without compromise is basically impossible in the modern world, and the labels of "conservative" and "progressive" are pretty much useless.

Aardvaarkman:

ecoho:
You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just nave, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

ecoho:
oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just nave, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Yes, I'm serious, and why is it nave?

If killing people goes against our social values/morals, then how is killing people a valid punishment?

That's just hypocrisy. Not to mention the problems with people who are killed and then are found to be innocent, after the ultimate punishment has been dealt. You can free somebody from prison if they are later found to be not guilty, you can't undo the death penalty.

How does sentencing somebody to death undo the criminal act and its effects? It's just revenge fantasy at that point.

ecoho:

Aardvaarkman:

ecoho:
You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just nave, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

Aardvaarkman:

ecoho:
oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just nave, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Yes, I'm serious, and why is it nave?

If killing people goes against our social values/morals, then how is killing people a valid punishment?

That's just hypocrisy. Not to mention the problems with people who are killed and then are found to be innocent, after the ultimate punishment has been dealt. You can free somebody from prison if they are later found to be not guilty, you can't undo the death penalty.

How does sentencing somebody to death undo the criminal act and its effects? It's just revenge fantasy at that point.

very simple answer a dead person cant kill again, you know like most murders do.

SexyGarfield:

ecoho:

Aardvaarkman:

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just nave, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

ecoho:
very simple answer a dead person cant kill again, you know like most murders do.

But that makes you another murderer who, according to your logic, should also be killed in retribution. We have laws, courts and judges to decide these matters - just because you feel that somebody has wronged you doesn't mean that you are allowed to kill them.

You haven't answered the question. If murdering people is wrong, how is murdering people who have murdered people right?

I'd also like to see your evidence that most murderers murder multiple times. Sounds like you've been watching too many films or TV shows to pay attention to reality.

Aardvaarkman:

ecoho:
very simple answer a dead person cant kill again, you know like most murders do.

But that makes you another murderer who, according to your logic, should also be killed in retribution. We have laws, courts and judges to decide these matters - just because you feel that somebody has wronged you doesn't mean that you are allowed to kill them.

You haven't answered the question. If murdering people is wrong, how is murdering people who have murdered people right?

I'd also like to see your evidence that most murderers murder multiple times. Sounds like you've been watching too many films or TV shows to pay attention to reality.

im sorry but have you read the reports that come out of California prisons? most of those people who are given life imprisonment kill other inmates to prove they stand at the top of the pyramid, and no killing someone who tried to kill you does not make you a murderer it makes you a practitioner of self defense. (I am talking in the moment not 3 days later while they sleep that would be murder, maybe justifiable and defendable but still murder)

Now in the case at hand the person would be given a trial and a judge would decide whether the person in question would be executed (which in the case of traitors and serial killers is the usual punishment if said punishment is on the table)

Aardvaarkman:

--snip--

Except that this is an inconsistent definition of tradition. The idea that a man could only marry one woman is quite a modern thing, a "progressive" change from the days when men had multiple wives, or the days when the King had the right to sexual intercourse with a bride-to-be.

Very true, but a conservative ideology doesn't take such a long view. Conservatives long for the old 1950s-1960s style values that they themselves 'grew up with'. So it's more about consistency over one's own lifetime (or at the most a generation before that), as opposed to keeping consistent with historical trends that are far removed from the person.

Aardvaarkman:
There is inconsistency throughout the spectrum of politics.

[...]

The very idea of an entirely consistent ideology without compromise is basically impossible in the modern world, and the labels of "conservative" and "progressive" are pretty much useless.

This is a different definition of consistency than the one we were talking about. When people talk about consistency as a basis for conservative ideology, they mean consistency in a sociocultural sense, not whether a specific party's views remain consistent with their parent ideology. Indeed, party politics is never exactly equal to the theory, as you correctly pointed out, but then neither is anything else in life (i.e. in mathematics there is such a thing as a straight line, but in physics there is not). Nonetheless, the philosophy of politics is still generally considered a useful tool through which to view party politics in terms of inter-party relations.

Aardvaarkman:
Many "conservatives" supposedly want government out of their lives, except when it comes to marriage, religion, the military and abortion.

Ha! You forgot about crime. Conservatives are never more interested in socialism than when it's about Clockwork Orange-style crime solutions.

BRHL
mit umlaut

with .. or ue
Bruehl or brhl. If you dont have these Letters ,, then take Ae, Oe, Ue.

ecoho:

SexyGarfield:

ecoho:

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just nave, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

ecoho:
im sorry but have you read the reports that come out of California prisons? most of those people who are given life imprisonment kill other inmates to prove they stand at the top of the pyramid,

Do you have a citation for that? And how does "most of the people given life imprisonment in California" constitute the majority of people who have committed murder?

... and no killing someone who tried to kill you does not make you a murderer it makes you a practitioner of self defense. (I am talking in the moment not 3 days later while they sleep that would be murder, maybe justifiable and defendable but still murder)

But that's not what you said in your previous post. You didn't mention self-defense at all - you mentioned the "right" for a murderer to be killed. If it was self-defense, the murder never would have happened in the first place, would it? Your logic is extremely faulty.

Now in the case at hand the person would be given a trial and a judge would decide whether the person in question would be executed (which in the case of traitors and serial killers is the usual punishment if said punishment is on the table)

The "usual" punishment? A significant portion (maybe even a majority) of civilized countries don't even have the death penalty. It doesn't seem to be working out to well for those countries that do, because countries that have a death penalty also tend to have higher rates of violent crime, and the USA is #1 in incarcerating its own citizens.

SexyGarfield:

ecoho:

SexyGarfield:

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

im sorry but have you never heard of classified information? even when that shit is leaked you don't admit you had spies or informants in another country that's how you cause an international incident and start you know wars.

Also the pentagon was a little busy trying to save their people when wikilinks offered to let them "help" with redacting the names, you know the ones that never should have been leaked in the first place.

ecoho:

SexyGarfield:

ecoho:

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

im sorry but have you never heard of classified information? even when that shit is leaked you don't admit you had spies or informants in another country that's how you cause an international incident and start you know wars.

Also the pentagon was a little busy trying to save their people when wikilinks offered to let them "help" with redacting the names, you know the ones that never should have been leaked in the first place.

I'm sorry I don't take conjecture as evidence, I doubt many reasonable people do. Like I said if there were any proof of loss of life caused by Chelsea Manning's leaks then it would've been presented at her trial. Regarding the pentagon and their being too busy, if it was really a threat to the lives of Americans or American assets helping redact what they see as necessary to redact would be saving lives. The refusal was just a matter if wounded pride.

Without watchdogs such as wikileaks, those with power in gov go unchecked and things like double tap would go unnoticed. I for one don't want my tax dollars used to kill first responders to bombings of unknown origin (to those on the ground[or even the Americans who are financing the strike]). The gov has lied to us so many times in the recent decade or so that without these unbelievably brave organizations and individuals they would continue, not even giving thought to consequence.

You've done it again, Bob. You've managed to sell me on a movie that I was dubious about. Before your review of the A-Team movie three years ago, I wouldn't have touched it because I wrongly wrote it off as another cash-grab for Hollywood to trample upon my 80s nostalgia. Sounds like this flick just made it to my rental list (no time in my life for going to the cineplex at the moment).

ecoho:

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Your statement is inconsistent with the truth.

SexyGarfield:

ecoho:

SexyGarfield:

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

im sorry but have you never heard of classified information? even when that shit is leaked you don't admit you had spies or informants in another country that's how you cause an international incident and start you know wars.

Also the pentagon was a little busy trying to save their people when wikilinks offered to let them "help" with redacting the names, you know the ones that never should have been leaked in the first place.

I'm sorry I don't take conjecture as evidence, I doubt many reasonable people do. Like I said if there were any proof of loss of life caused by Chelsea Manning's leaks then it would've been presented at her trial. Regarding the pentagon and their being too busy, if it was really a threat to the lives of Americans or American assets helping redact what they see as necessary to redact would be saving lives. The refusal was just a matter if wounded pride.

Without watchdogs such as wikileaks, those with power in gov go unchecked and things like double tap would go unnoticed. I for one don't want my tax dollars used to kill first responders to bombings of unknown origin (to those on the ground[or even the Americans who are financing the strike]). The gov has lied to us so many times in the recent decade or so that without these unbelievably brave organizations and individuals they would continue, not even giving thought to consequence.

your from he Netherlands how are your tax dollars being used? Now like I said I have no problem with watchdog groups and whistle blowers I just think that if they put peoples lives at risk then they crossed the line.

They didn't show proof of loss of life for the reasons I stated before and as to why they didn't help redact what they see as necessary to redact is because as we all know(or should after being on the internet at all) is once somethings on the net its there forever and as such time was better spent getting assets out of harms way.

Now I believe your heart is in the right place and as such I ask that after you answer my first question(im honestly curious about that statement) we agree to disagree and move on.

ecoho:
your from he Netherlands how are your tax dollars being used? Now like I said I have no problem with watchdog groups and whistle blowers I just think that if they put peoples lives at risk then they crossed the line.

They didn't show proof of loss of life for the reasons I stated before and as to why they didn't help redact what they see as necessary to redact is because as we all know(or should after being on the internet at all) is once somethings on the net its there forever and as such time was better spent getting assets out of harms way.

Now I believe your heart is in the right place and as such I ask that after you answer my first question(im honestly curious about that statement) we agree to disagree and move on.

I am a citizen and resident of the United States. I regularly use a VPN service and when I registered this account the connection was likely with a Netherlands server. A end to this sounds like a good idea, there seems to be little chance of ideological resolution between us and we have each spoken our piece.

SexyGarfield:

ecoho:
your from he Netherlands how are your tax dollars being used? Now like I said I have no problem with watchdog groups and whistle blowers I just think that if they put peoples lives at risk then they crossed the line.

They didn't show proof of loss of life for the reasons I stated before and as to why they didn't help redact what they see as necessary to redact is because as we all know(or should after being on the internet at all) is once somethings on the net its there forever and as such time was better spent getting assets out of harms way.

Now I believe your heart is in the right place and as such I ask that after you answer my first question(im honestly curious about that statement) we agree to disagree and move on.

I am a citizen and resident of the United States. I regularly use a VPN service and when I registered this account the connection was likely with a Netherlands server. A end to this sounds like a good idea, there seems to be little chance of ideological resolution between us and we have each spoken our piece.

ok good to know lol. Always nice to have a debate with someone reasonable take care.

As far as it's shortcoming compared to the admittedly similar Social network. "The social network" inhabited a really interesting head-space. More than it's content it's the way the film flows and ebbs that makes it an enjoyable watch. David Fincher did, after all, come from the world of music videos. The film has a great pace and mood from its opening throughout it's entire length. Part of this comes from Trent Reznor/ Atticus Ross pretty fantastic score (and the great way it's utilized) but in a wider sense the film has a lot of room to breath, giving the drama more of a punch.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here