Had Assange been publishing Chinese state secrets...

[vsagarv]

Had Assange been publishing Chinese state secrets, - and - If the secrets were heroically obtained by an anonymous democracy-loving Chinese soldier at great risk to his life, - and - if the Chinese government asked Amazon to take down Wikileaks and also hinted to Paypal/Mastercard/Visa to do the same, - and - If an arrest warrant for Assange was issued on unrelated charges, suspiciously at the same time as the leaks,

What would the editorials in the free-world be talking about? The rights of the Chinese government or Assange's fearless voice of democracy?

Would the US and Swedish diplomats be figuring a way to get Assange extradited to China -or- would they be drafting a sure-to-win Nobel Peace Prize nomination?

What would White House and Downing Street say, about Chinese govt. claims of their troops lives being in danger?

Would the common public be suspecting Assange on the assault case or would they be sure that China is foisting upon him, a fabricated case?

It would have been good to have George Orwell and Aldous Huxley on HN. And yes, Noam Chomsky too.

[mooism2]

I think your analogy is flawed. Are Chinese and Swedish diplomats figuring out how to extradite Assange to America?

I am not inclined to uncritically believe Assange since he misled us about the nature of the charges against him.

[vsagarv]

Analogies have limited reach, agreed :) The script has changed a bit now. It is the US & UK diplomats working secretly. Since they are working secretly, we do not know what they are trying to do, but it is quite possible they are not thinking of his welfare.

[erik_landerholm]

He would already be dead.

[vsagarv]

Unless he was operating out of a safe haven nation.

[BobNeumann]

There's a hitch in your logic: The US IS the good guys: Freedom-loving, freedom-protecting, doing what's right good guys. China is an oppressive murderous communist regime. The US is good, China is evil.

So your premise doesn't hold up.

[vsagarv]

Bob, my logic is probably illogical. And my premise may hold only in a limited context.

But how does one logically prove a statement of the kind "X is good" (independent of "Y is evil"). Mathematically (predicate logic wise) speaking, Proof by intimidation, Proof by personal-belief and Proof by assertion / repeated-reassertion don't hold up either.

Consider this philosophy: I am good. Because I believe that to be true. Thus, what's good for me is good for the rest of the world. And anything else is bad. So, I now use my might whichever way to annihilate the bad.

Anyway, (ostensibly) the US has taken upon itself, the role of championing freedom and democracy across the world. There are probably no better beacons than its founding fathers, to guide its actions while playing that role.

[iwr]

What furthers US interests furthers Good; the US is Good and its purposes noble; the US acts for the Good of the world and disagreement with the US is Evil.

As a democracy, Americans elect their officials. As leaders of a force for Good, these officials act with noble purposes; embarrassing them hurts Good and is therefore Evil.

[vsagarv]

:) Yes, your satire more or less captures the broad argument of the govts involved/affected, against wikileaks. (I just took the liberty to assume it was a satire and doesn't mean the verbatim).

[messel]

I assumed the same Vijaya