Althouse: Ron Paul, pro-Wikileaks.

December 11, 2010

Ron Paul, pro-Wikileaks.

17 comments:

Unknown said...: That doesn't surprise me. The hard-core Libertarians think we can go back to being Isolationist. People in touch with reality recognized that ended 67 years ago last Tuesday.; 12/11/10, 10:06 AM
Toad Trend said...: Mr. Paul does raise some interesting questions, no doubt, but because he is a libertarian and not a NYT columnist, many of his questions will be dismissed. Certainly, with all the irons the US has in 'fires' all over the world, I don't think its a bad idea to revisit much of our foreign policy considering the numerous issues we face in the United States proper. Our ailing economy, a southern border under siege, DC elites spending like drunken sailors never imagined, etc etc. At some point, drawing back in the direction of but not actually achieving isolationism is what needs to be considered.; 12/11/10, 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Julian Assange has done nothing that Catherine Graham and Ben Bradlee and Woodward and Bernstein haven't done.

Except he's doing it TO the Democrats ... and not FOR the Democrats.

Democrats are not for the proposition of state secrets. They are for the proposition that state secrets should be used only by Democrats - to blackmail and punish Republicans and other Americans who deign to criticize them and their socialist policies (cue Joe The Plumber).; 12/11/10, 10:17 AM
William said...: TR famously said that our government should speak softly and carry a big stick. By speaking softly, he meant that our diplomats should negotiate sotto voce, without bluster and behind the scenes. The background machinations of governments are more often an effort to keep the peace than they are to involve us in war. Assange wishes to deprive us of that card......Compare the Congress of Vienna which ended the Napoleonic Wars with the Paris Treaty that put finish to WWI. It was for many years the liberal view that the Vienna diplomats behind closed doors arranged for the restoration of repressive regimes and the stifling of liberty. Nonetheless, there were one hundred years of peace after the secret negotiations at Vienna. Compare that record with Paris. Open covenants openly arrived at. Hardly. And we are still murdering people based on the idealistic formulations of the diplomats there.....It is simple minded to claim that secrecy does not have its part to play in diplomacy and keeping the peace.; 12/11/10, 10:18 AM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/10, 10:20 AM
Crimso said...: So is it permissible for the government to keep secrets? Show me someone who says "no" and I'll show you someone who hasn't thought about Presidential travel schedules, nuclear launch codes, and Roswell. Sorry, couldn't resist that last one. Clearly the answer must be "yes." The trouble comes in deciding what is appropriate to be kept secret and what isn't, and who decides. These are not easy questions, but I'm fairly certain that an incorrect answer to the last question is "WikiLeaks."; 12/11/10, 10:41 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Ron Paul, talking sense. When do you see a politician doing that?; 12/11/10, 10:41 AM
Robert Cook said...: Kudos to Mr. Paul.; 12/11/10, 10:44 AM
GMay said...: "So is it permissible for the government to keep secrets?"

His name would be Robert Cook.; 12/11/10, 10:45 AM
GMay said...: Crap, he beat me to the thread.; 12/11/10, 10:46 AM
rhhardin said...: A review of the reasons for war in Iraq for Mr Paul's benefit, nicely put in July, 2003, by den Beste.; 12/11/10, 10:49 AM
Toad Trend said...: @ Crimso

Yes. Secrets are necessary for self-preservation to be sure. The Wikileaks situation is closer to anarchy in a sense. A looming question is one of internal security - how does a PFC get his hands on this stuff in the first place?; 12/11/10, 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Kookie,

You do know that Assange is now facing rape charges from a Swedish feminist hag, don't you?

She's bringing charges for "sex by surprise." Evidently, in Sweden rape is whatever a girl says it is.

Does this give you pause? Your female comrades would gladly pull this bait and switch on you.

This is the type of woman you get for your politics. This is the audience you're playing to.

Any second thoughts?; 12/11/10, 11:32 AM
Kirk Parker said...: rhhardin,

It's sure a strange world, when some hitherto-unknown (well, ok, still unknown as far as the "world" is concerned) electrical engineer can write more sense than the entire foreign policy establishment and "official" punditocracy combined.; 12/11/10, 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: When I think of all the personal information I've been obliged to provide the government, it had fucking well better be keeping secrets.; 12/11/10, 2:19 PM
Gene said...: Ron Paul's remarks before congress remind me once more why I wrote in his name for president in the elections of 2008.; 12/11/10, 4:36 PM
MDIJim said...: It is not about government having secrets. It is about publishing those secrets when the government fails to keep them.

So, how is Assange guiltier than the New York Times, Washington Post, and Woodward to name a few? He is publishing what the government made available to a PFC with a grievance.

None of the major national security measures put in place by Bush has been undone by Obama. Measures that generated outraged complaints about Bush by "civil libertarians" in the media and on the left, starting with Guantanamo and the Patriot Act, are still in effect.

In fact, Obama now asserts the power to kill American citizens with nary a nod to due process. Where is the outrage?; 12/12/10, 8:14 AM