Why is Biden Prosecuting Assange for Telling the Truth about Afghanistan?
www.newsweek.com
Julian Assange warned the public that the goal in Afghanistan "is to have an endless war, not a successful war."

Two of us, Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky, testified for Assange at his extradition hearing last year. In Ellsberg’s words then, the WikiLeaks publications that Assange is being charged for are “amongst the most important truthful revelations of hidden criminal state behavior that have been made public in U.S. history.” The American public “needed urgently to know what was being done routinely in their name, and there was no other way for them to learn it than by unauthorized disclosure.”

  • Preußisch BlauEnglish
    33·
    11 months ago

    “The post-conventional level [of morality], also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

    Kohlberg has speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.”

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      4·
      11 months ago

      That I can find two ways to apply this here and get opposing results, I’m curious to know what context you’re sharing this.

      • Preußisch BlauEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Interesting, I don’t see the other one. I meant to imply that this guy seems to like to conflate the law with morality with regards to the outrage over Assange, as if he has not reached the post-conventional stage. “Why are people outraged, he broke the law, you can disagree but the law’s the law.” is how I interpret his thinking, and I think that’s childish.