WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

the best people to understand are those . . . existing in a complex and fine balance.

Oh, OK. So you like King Crimson too!

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Oh, OK. So you like King Crimson too!

Cheers,
Mazo.

Got the vinyl

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I'm not saying the government shouldn't be watched, nor am I suggesting that they are always honest. I merely think releasing any piece of classified information you can possibly get your hands on, with no real purpose, does nothing to improve the world and is more an act of anarchy.

So WTHeck was the purpose of classifying that stupid shit about us stealing your water supply? Why shouldn't I be able to find out that we have a moron working in Canada writing stupid classified memo's? People like that should be fired...not hidden because someone decides to classify their memo.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Whistle blowers have their place, when they're acting as instruments of change with strategic intent.

Who gets to decide what is a good whistle blower and what is a bad whistle blower?

What if it is you who the government has decided to hush?

They are trying to quite the Wiki leader through trumped up charges of rape. You seem to think that is ok because you stated that you do not care for the guy. That is not how the first amendment works. In fact that is a HUGE red flag in my book.

It would be no different than if the powers to be on this board decided that you were not a good person and got together behind closed doors with someone that thinks you are a bad person because you are blunt in telling the truth and needed hushing then decided to ban you and let other continue to tell lies about you.

Wiki is the way around lies.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

This idea that all information can be shared, and all things can be done under the full light of the public, assumes "an international community" which I feel is deeply naive.

We do not want to disarm those in government who are good at what they do, who could effect great change, and have honest and sincere intent, but need to be able to think in peace when choosing how to move their next chess piece.

It is naive to let anyone in my government (or yours) have the power to decide what my best interest is behind closed doors. I am a big boy, I can decide in open public debate WTF is in my best interest. I forget who said it but it goes something like this "Anyone you will give up their personal freedom for their safety , deserves neither."

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

On what grounds? He is neither a US citizen nor has he ever sworn allegiance to the US so by definition he can't be a traitor. Seems like there isn't any way the US can bring any other charges against him either.

Actually, that's what they should charge the dumb**s private that passed him the information. So far, he's getting off easy with just charges of mishandling classified material. As for the wikileaks tard? He's not a traitor, but a useful idiot. He should be charged with espionage.

[Whirlaway]

If following the "rule of law" was the requiste gold standard of civilized democaracy then John Brown and the abolitionists would be considered pariahs, as well as MLK (et al) for their civil disobedience and even Lincoln for suspending habius corpus.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Actually, that's what they should charge the dumb**s private that passed him the information. So far, he's getting off easy with just charges of mishandling classified material. As for the wikileaks tard? He's not a traitor, but a useful idiot. He should be charged with espionage.

I think all our citizens that do not want to know what our government is doing should move to Russia. Find out first hand how that works out .

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by JahiaraQ

Did I miss something? Are we not in America ? What happened to that lil piece of paper, you know the one that idiot G.W. Bush wiped his ass with? What was it called ? Oh yeah the constitution & Bill of Rights. Was I misinformed about this in grade school or didnt it cover a thing called freedom of the press? I hope he continues to tell the gvt to fuck themselves. This isnt communist era russia. Its America and whe have rights, no one should be punished for using them.

Perhaps you could be the first one to provide me with proof, that George Bush "wiped his ass" with the constitution. Based on similar comments I've debated with since the Patriot Act's creation, I'm guessing that you're referencing the Patriot Act.

Having said that.

Go to the text of the Patriot Act itself. (I don't want newspaper articles, I don't want news website articles, etc.) Go to the actual Patriot Act, and quote me a text, from that document, that "proves" that George Bush "wiped" his ass with the United States Constitution.

Little Civics trivia.

Congress creates bills, which are candidates to become the law of the land. POTUS signs them into law, or vetoes them. After a bill is vetoed, Congress has the option of overturning that veto.

Now, if SCOTUS deems a law unconstitutional, or sections of it, unconstitutional, they have the option of striking parts, or the entire law, as being unconstitutional. They haven't done this with the Patriot Act. It's a law that has both, Republican and Democrat authors.

In 2009, Congress, and the President, extended key provisions of the Patriot Act. Which party held the majority that year? hmmm...

Or were you talking about something else? Perhaps you could give me something new, and not something that's been repeatedly harped over these past years by those I've argued with on the topic.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

I think all our citizens that do not want to know what our government is doing should move to Russia. Find out first hand how that works out .

My point is that certain information shouldn't get out, given the nature of the war we're involved with. Loose lips sinks ships has bigger applications in today's wars.

[pjorourke]

Ramirez:

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

My point is that certain information shouldn't get out, given the nature of the war we're involved with. Loose lips sinks ships has bigger applications in today's wars.

It is not Wiki's fault that the government can't manage its secrets!

They are going after the wrong person....

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by WTF

It is naive to let anyone in my government (or yours) have the power to decide what my best interest is behind closed doors. I am a big boy, I can decide in open public debate WTF is in my best interest. I forget who said it but it goes something like this "Anyone you will give up their personal freedom for their safety , deserves neither."

I happen to agree that the Wikileaks folks have done a good job in redacting things as appropriate and that on the whole government classifies far too much information - I mean the government classified the weather reports in Iraq both in 1991 and in 2003.

Let me turn this topic a bit: is there information that should remain secret?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

As for the wikileaks tard? He's not a traitor, but a useful idiot. He should be charged with espionage.

Apparently the US doesn't have any law that would allow for that.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If following the "rule of law" was the requiste gold standard of civilized democaracy then John Brown and the abolitionists would be considered pariahs, as well as MLK (et al) for their civil disobedience and even Lincoln for suspending habius corpus.

That is called civil disobedience and there is a price that comes with it. John Brown was hanged. MLK arrested. And so forth.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

It is not Wiki's fault that the government can't manage its secrets!

They are going after the wrong person....

Quit trying to shift the blame. Wiki should've done the right thing, but they failed to do so. If you've got a website that has users all over the world, you're subject to the laws of those areas of the world. Wiki was in the wrong for what it did. Governments are going after the right person.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Apparently the US doesn't have any law that would allow for that.

If you go to the same place you got your information about who can, and can't be charged, with being a traitor, you'd probably run into information that shows that the US has laws against ESPIONAGE. Again, if you have an operation that operates in the United States, you're subject to US law. The same is applicable if you have an operation in other countries, you're subject to those other country's laws.