WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Wow in the space of 2 threads we have the chance (if we want to take it) to debate NPOA and abortion. Can this week get any better?

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Yep. A cornerstone of the health care law has been found unconstitutional, subject to the inevitable appeal.

Of course, I disagree with the VA court that did so, but you asked for what could make the week better? Like pouring gasoline on a small fire.

A trifecta!!!

[Rudyard K]

CT, much like your post in another thread regarding the law trying to catch up with technology…the law, or rules, have some catching up to do with the current state of war.

Over the course of history, in a war, everyone knew who the enemy was. They were those SOBs on the other side of the field shooting at us. And while we like to think that there were “rules of war” even in those situations…there really were not many. And those few that there were…were trampled upon by the combatants frequently and with little or no repercussions. The way you determined who was the “good guy” at the end of the war…was by the books the victor wrote telling of his righteous cause.

Today’s “War on terror” has some figuring out to do. Because if one side won’t follow any rules, then they will prevail…or at least prolong the battle. Even in the revolutionary war that started this great country…the British were fighting the war in the historically proper manner. i.e. - Line up on the battle field and crush your opponent with superior might. We decided “F*ck that”…”They will whip our ass”. So, we used surprise attacks and ambushes to win the war. In the “Rules of war” for that time…such actions were not really according to Hoyle.

It’s fine and dandy to stand on your high horse and talk about this country’s ideals. But when we need to “win the war” those ideals were really not all that haughty. Ask any Japanese (US citizen or not) who was in this country some 60 years ago.

You are probably right that the situation…here in the US…has not really gotten bad enough to abandon those ideals. But they will. And when they do, the underbelly of this country will rise up and beat the interlopers into submission. And be proclaimed heroes for doing so.

Once they do, it is my hope that they will…once again…head back to their homes and communities to try to uphold the ideals we all wish the world would live under. That way all the elitists can feel good about themselves again.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Once they do, it is my hope that they will…once again…head back to their homes and communities to try to uphold the ideals we all wish the world would live under.

But isn't that one of the problems? Once you unleash the "rule of the mob" putting the genie back in the bottle (excuse my mixed metaphors) is not so easy. And who is to say that the mob gets it right? How many innocent people will get caught in this web?

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

But isn't that one of the problems? Once you unleash the "rule of the mob" putting the genie back in the bottle (excuse my mixed metaphors) is not so easy. And who is to say that the mob gets it right? How many innocent people will get caught in this web?

If you believe that mob is inherantly unruly...then that's a hell of a problem. I don't. I believe the mob (at least in this country) rises up to address certain problems...and right certain wrongs. Just like they have throughout our history. That history would include the establishment of this nation.

It ain't like most of the folks in this country were running around saying "Let's go kill all the British and run 'em out of here"...when we started this whole experiment.

So, for the last 200 years this citizens of this country have attempted to live by a certain set of standards and ideals. At least until they ain't working. Then we do what it takes to win the war...and to date...then go back to trying to live within those ideals.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

If you believe that mob is inherantly unruly...then that's a hell of a problem. I don't. I believe the mob (at least in this country) rises up to address certain problems...and right certain wrongs.

As a follow up...I believe the mob here is not really that unruly, because we don't have a lot of rules.

As long as you don't kill somebody...or unnecesaruly beat the sh*t out of somebody...or steal from others...or live your life endagering others...there really ain't a lot of rules that will get you in a lot of trouble. That makes it pretty easy to not be unruly. There are laws and rules that I think need to be changed that would make things free'er still...but for the most part, I don't have much trouble living between the lines.

[charlestudor2005]

RK--

You point to our revolution as an example, but I believe this can occur in most any civilization. It's just that we are more familiar with our own history. Examples:

• The Magna Carta and eventual marginalizing of the monarchy.
• The French Revolution
• Ghandi and Indian Independence
• The American Industrial Revolution and the Child Labor Laws (also the fight against company scrip)

I'm not as familiar with the history of African, Asian or South American nations, but I'm sure the same dynamics apply. Especially if you subscribe to some of the theories put forth by John Stuart Mill.

I believe that most societies work in cycles. There is peace, there is unrest/disaffection, there is eventual revolt, there is peace again. No society can live in constant turmoil, although some do so more than others. Even Cuba, under Castro, became a stable society.

In the end, if there is mob rule, it is only transitory. Society as a whole gravitates towards order.

[herfacechair]

WTF: Fair enough. I should have been more clear. Our government outted a CIA agent, my guess is you have no problem with that.

She was no longer an operative, in the middle of a mission, when she was "outed." I put that in quotes, as it was common knowledge in Washington DC that she was an agent. When she was outed, she wasn't even working as an agent.

WTF: Bullshit.

The only bullshit that I'm seeing is the posts made by those that I'm arguing against here. You argued that we have a large military industrial complex because of "information control," or something to that affect. I countered that to with the fact that the military industrial complex exists to support DOD demands. That's a fact, regardless of what words you use in disagreement.

Saying "bullshit" to something I say reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

WTF: Wasting money on trumped up wars is not something the public is in favor of. That is why you folks have to trump them up , to scare the public for funds. What , you can't handle the truth?

BULLSHIT!

Heh, now THAT was justified.

There's nothing "trumped up" about these wars. The events of 9/11 woke most of America up to a cold hard reality... that a hostile entity that's not defined by what we're used to defining an enemy... was waging a systematic war of attrition against us. The invasion of Afghanistan was never just about 9/11, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, etc. It was our country finally responding to this war. It's a real war that's not adequately captured by the name, "Global War on Terrorism."

I call it, "The Terrorist War to Exterminate Western Civilization and to Establish Global Radical Islamic Law".

Part of what I'm basing my assessments on is the fact that our enemies have openly admitted, directly or indirectly, that Islam is at war with the West, and that their ultimate goal is to unite the world under the banner of Islam... their version of it.

These are facts, these are the truth, something I have no issues with. You, on the other hand, are reacting to the truth by setting stress shields up.

WTF: Great, you signed up to kill folks, it explains why you believe what you do.

WRONG. I signed up for the reasons I've been arguing on this post, as well as on other forums on the Internet. I signed up for reasons I've argued face to face with people.

WTF: Oh I get it...I just do not agree with you. I could say you don't get it but then whatb would be the point. We have reached different conclusions. No big deal.

Let's sum this up. You insinuated that we shouldn't go after the Wiki guy, as it "wasn't his fault" that he got access to the information. I countered that by saying that he is responsible for his own actions. You came back with an analogy that countered your original argument in this area. Then I countered with my argument that people are responsible for their own actions, and should be held accountable for it.

If you don't agree with my argument, then you're "arguing" that we should excuse people from their wrongful actions, if someone did something wrong before that. Or something to that affect. I argued that he should be held accountable for not doing the right thing. Yes, our disagreement, in this area, is glaringly obvious.

I'm not just saying that you don't get it, "for the hell of it." I'm saying that you don't get it if you insinuate that we shouldn't go after the Wiki guy, "because it wasn't his fault" that the government "couldn't safeguard its information..." while, ignoring the elephant in the room... The Useful Idiot doing what the reasonable person would know is the wrong thing to do.

WTF: You are missing my point.

WRONG. I got your points, you're arguing points that I've argued against all these years. I've ben countering your argument point by point, so it's hard "not" to get your points.

WTF: I do not think we should be in ever country sticking our nose in other peoples business.

Hate to break this out to you, but every country is pursuing its interest. What you accuse the United States of doing, other countries do, either on a global or regional level. If we were to "mind our own business," as you folks consistently like to argue, another country will ultimately take our role.

It's a human trait, just as I see you participating on these threads, nations around the world are going to "stick their noses" in other people's business. They do this as a necessary "convenience" while they pursue their own interests.

Given the asymmetrical warfare that we're involved in, we have to be doing what we're doing right now to defeat the threat that intends to eliminate us as a culture, as a non Muslim people. Our failure to do what we're doing right now invites the enemy to succeed with their goal... establishing global Islamic law.

WTF: If it were up to me there would be no ramifications, you would not be over where you are at. Can you at least think a couple of steps ahead?

Thank God that you don't determine our strategic goals.

My arguments on this thread are based on my thinking several steps ahead.

China is a perfect example of what would happen to the United States if it were to quit pursuing its interests, and to "mind its own business." Right when the Europeans were beginning their maritime explorations, explorations that ultimately resulted in great European Empires, the Chinese stood ahead of the Europeans. The Chinese had sent a fleet, with ships wielding superior design and seaworthiness than their European counterparts, out to expand trade routes.

The Chinese stood to widen their lead over the Europeans. But, the Chinese Emperor decided to disengage from the world, to no longer pursue China's interests. China stepped aside, while the "backward" Europeans pushed ahead with their maritime explorations.

Well, centuries later, European powers were carving China up like cake... Chinese emperors watched in humiliation while being too weak to prevent the powers from having their way. If the United States were to do what you, and others, have argued, we too would end up like the Chinese, sliding back and ultimately being another country's "bitch."

I am where I'm at for the reasons I've argued. We're fighting an enemy that wants to exterminate who we are, and to replace us with a radical version of Islam.

We "mind our own business here," and not be "elsewhere," like, you know, engaging our mortal enemy, and we'll end up losing. Our descendants will be bowing before Mecca five times a day. Rome didn't fall until her freedmen gave up the will to fight.

Your arguments reflect those of someone who doesn't have the will to fight, in terms of national survival. If this country were to take your suggestions, and to do what you want it to do, like the Romans before us, we too will fall.

In this war, there are only two options. We accomplish our ultimate objectives, or they accomplish theirs. There's NO middle ground, or alternate option.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

No difference between the two. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Otherwise, Al Gore would have been President.

No, the constitution means what our founding fathers said it means... unless you meant "what SCOTUS" interprets out of it.

Also, neither the United States Supreme Court, nor any of the Florida court systems, had any business jumping into the 2000 election fiasco. I read the Florida laws that were on the books, that affected Catherine Harris' (sp) decision to certify the votes that she had at the deadline.

The Court's job is to interpret the law.

In this case, no interpretation was needed, the law was clear cut. The proper course of action was for the court to throw Al Gore's case out. Instead, they legislated from the bench, all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. The moment that happened, certain people's votes ended up getting relative "preferential" treatment as opposed to everybody else' vote. This made it a matter for the federal court. This ultimately brought SCOTUS into the picture. The Florida Supreme Court's legislating from the bench could've essentially damaged George Bush's rightful place in election.

The United States Supreme Court did what a court should do... right a wrong based on properly interpreting the law.

If you read the constitution, you'd notice that it's the Electoral College, and not the people, who vote for the President.

[herfacechair]

TexTushHog: Surely you don't believe what you just wrote?

I strongly believe the assessment that I've presented on this, and on other message boards.

What I'm writing here is based on extensive research, study, experience, etc, in the topic that we're debating. It's an assessment based on years, and even decades, of my analysis of the topic that I happen to be debating. OF COURSE I believe what I'm writing.

Originally posted by TexTushHog:

Let's say that the UK passes a law (or Iran) that says it's illegal to promote prostitution by writing reviews of your visits with prostitutes. And that they can prove that this website is used in their jurisdiction. Do you really think it's OK to prosecute you for writing reviews on ECCIE in the UK, or Iran? Even if you've never set foot in those countries?

What is a UK prostitute visits Dallas and you review her here in the UK section on ECCIE? Is it OK then?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

If I visit an American independent escort, and post a review of her on a forum concentrating on an American locality, no. If I do a session with a UK provider, and post a review of her in the UK section of a hobby website, and given your scenario, then YES, the UK would have every right to prosecute me... as well as the owner of this site.

This is an apples to oranges comparison here, because we have laws on the books that actually cover what the Useful Idiot just did. He's doing damage to our cause against the terrorists.

TexTushHog: Or you write that Islamic countries are as morally backwards as Christian countries and advocate legalization in both areas?

My argument is that a radical element of Islam is at war with the west, and that we have to fight back.

According to many radical Islamists, we're all subject to Islamic Law, regardless of whether we're Muslims or not. Therefore, anything that we do, that goes counter to what Islam wants us to do, makes us guilty under Islamic Law... thus makes us punishable under Islamic Law.

TexTushHog: Could you then be prosecuted for apostasy in Iran? Or Afghanistan? Give me a fuckin' break.

Under Islamic Law, YES. Also, under Islamic Law, your statement about Islamic countries being morally backwards can result in your being prosecuted for apostasy... as per Islamic Law.

TexTushHog: Surely you don't believe that just because Assange has as presence on the web and extends into the US that alone justifies him being haled into court here.

Would it hurt you to read what I wrote with the intentions of understanding what I'm saying? The Useful Idiot released documents that our government intended to remain classified. We have a law that covers that, and he seems to fit nicely into it. I stand by my argument. He did so on a website that people in the United States, and its terrirotires, have access to. This is a website that users in the United States can "benefit" from.

Hence, the apples and oranges comparisons that you're making.

TexTushHog: If so, ask why you shouldn't be haled into court in the UK or Iran under the scenarios I posit.

If your scenarios were true, then the UK would have every right to demand my extradition for posting a review, of a UK provider, on a UK section of a hobby board, in violation of UK law.

Regardless of whether your scenarios were true or not, we're "subject" to punishment, under Radical Islamic Law, for "crimes" that goes counter to what the Radicals want us to do. They'd have a hard time getting you extradited. However, they'd quickly apply it if we wind up in the part of the world labeled, "Dar al Islam," or the part of the world labeled as "Dar al Harb" (sp) that comes under Radical Islamic Law.

[herfacechair]

discreetgent: Of course Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, and others in the military (I think at least one of the joint chiefs of staff) have been quoted that they cannot point to any incident of harm to the troops from any of the Wikileak releases. They could of course be lying but I'm really not sure that they would have the incentive to do so if the idea is to put pressure on Wikileaks.

I'll take the word of people who are currently downrange, or who have just returned from being downrange, than I would from quasi political military officers who report to work in plush DOD offices. And I'll take the word of those who are downrange, that I hear from, than I would the media claims it talked to.

You've also got to read between the lines when they speak. We could look at a wide range of terrorist attacks downrange. They may, or may not, have resulted from the wiki releases. They have to monitor what's going on over a period of time.

Here's an example of the adverse affect of the leaks. The video of the helicopter pilots shooting at insurgents. What wiki took out of context, accusing the pilots of shooting innocent civilians. I saw the vid, and they clearly had AKs and an RPG Launcher. But, the way wiki presented it enraged some of the insurgency in Iraq, causing some insurgent groups to carry out actions they otherwise wouldn't have carried out had the video not ben released.

The loss of even one life due to the releases is enough to say that the wiki releases endangered our troops and efforts.

discreetgent: I agree that we (although you addressed WTF) are coming at this from such vastly different starting points that agreement on these issues is unlikely).

Again, I've ben doing this since coming back from OIF 1. I track a thread long before jumping in. Prior to my first post, I know who I'm going to ultimately be arguing with, and I know that nothing that's said or presented is going to get the other side to change from their argument.

I argue for the sake of arguing, knowing full well that neither side is going to change their minds.

discreetgent: In terms of propaganda there is plenty out there that isn't classified that could be use.

We should never assume that our enemies would disregard a certain source of information for their propaganda creation. Also, we should NEVER give our enemy amo they could use in their efforts against us.

discreetgent: But along those lines: Should the abuses at Abu Ghraib have been kept under wraps by the media because they would provide propaganda? Should the media have not reported that the US used waterboarding because it would provide propaganda?

Yes to both questions. In the case of Abu Ghraib, the military justice system was already in the process of doing Article 32 hearings on the miscreants. Abu Ghraib should've ben kept under wraps until the Army deemed it necessary for it to come out. What those soldiers did to those thugs/murderors isn't representative of the Army, or the United States. Tracking. The Army was in the process of holding them accountable. This was one incident that shouldn't have gotten out. But it did, and the Anti Iraqi Forces upped their fight when they otherwise wouldn't have.

The waterboarding tactics should've also ben kept under wraps, for similar reasons.

Like I said earlier, there are things that shouldn't be getting out to the general public, especially if it has the potential to be the Cause Célèbre for the forces we're fighting against.

[herfacechair]

charlestudor2005: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

My rules of engagement involves me debating with someone I know is stuck on his opinion. I have no intentions of changing the opposition's mind, and I have no intentions of changing mine. I debate for fun, and I debate ad infinitum.

charlestudor2005: I will say that I've rarely run into someone so intransigent and wrong in their opinions.

In order to claim that someone is "wrong", you have to prove them "wrong" with a reasonable argument based on fact, logic and reason. You, as well as the others that I've debated with, have consistently failed to present a reasoned argument.

You failed to present a fact filled argument against me, so you have no legs to stand on when insinuating that I'm "wrong" with my "opinions."

charlestudor2005: Most sane people will at least admit there is some room for them to be wrong, but you do not do even that.

I've thoroughly gone through your posts addressing mine, and have given you a point by point rebuttal. NOWHERE have you done what you claim here. Do as you preach guy. I recognize the tactic that you're trying to use to get similar "concession" from the other side. It won't work, and that doesn't constitute your "not" doing what you accuse me of doing.

charlestudor2005: You base your whole POV, as far as I can see, on your service and your military orientation.

Go back and read what I said, this time with the intentions of understanding what I'm saying. I'm basing my argument on my EXPERIENCE and on my RESEARCH.

charlestudor2005: That does not give you a well-rounded view of the world. And you tout your deployments as if they made you an expert, and as if no one else on this board has ever been out of the US.

WRONG.

We're debating about the ramifications of the WIKI releases on our efforts against our enemies. Regardless of how well traveled others have been, if their travels didn't involve a recent combat deployment to the combat theater that was subject to the Wiki releases, their "well traveled" experiences are not relevant.

Do you see the connection between this debate and my travel experiences, vice to the opposition's "travel" experiences? Connect the dots, I dare you to.

charlestudor2005: You would be well advised to recognize several things about this board:

What part of my statement about debating online for years don't you understand?

Let me simplify this for you. I've argued against many of the same points over and over again, over the years, across many websites. This board is no different from the others when it comes to having different demographics.

charlestudor2005: (1) most on here are well educated.

Being well educated on a non-war discipline doesn't give one equal footing in a debate with someone who has experience in a war discipline... in a combat zone that happens to be a target of some of the leaked videos. To illustrate, you're not going to see me refer to my MBA in a discussion involving war, but I would reference it in a discussion involving business/economy.


charlestudor2005: Some are attorneys, and you show your extreme ignorance of the law when you take them on.

If any of the people that I'm debating with here are "lawyers," they've failed to prove me "wrong" when it came to matters involving the law. Heck, if any of the people that I'm debating with are "lawyers," they'll do allot of damage to their "lawyer" claims by admitting such.

charlestudor2005: (2) A lot of members of this board are well traveled and are familiar not only with other countries, but have lived abroad. Your singular deployment does not make you a world traveler compared to the other members of this board.

First, since we're debating about something that affects our efforts in the war on terrorism, being well traveled, as you describe it, isn't valid unless it involves a combat deployment. For instance, living in a country for X amount of years, in a peace time capacity, doesn't put one on equal footing, on a war related topic, as someone who has combat deployed.

Second, you've make assumptions of my total experiences based on the limited information that I've put on this board. So, let me clue you in something:

I've lived in a foreign country for 5 years, I could speak 2 other languages.

I've travelled to 4 continents outside North America. I've ben to countries in Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia.

I've made deployments to Somalia, Former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. I've also deployed to Haiti in response to contingencies there.

And get this, how many of your "world travelers" can claim to be a Shellback? Probably little to none. Hint, you have to be in a part of the world the majority of the world's population has yet to go to to get that designation.

I stand by my statements. My combat deployments put me in a better vantage point when it comes to talking about the negative impact Wikileaks has on our efforts than someone who could just say, "they're a world traveler."

charlestudor2005: (3) You made a fool out of yourself when you denigrated and tried to define hornbook law. The lawyers on this board actually know what it is.

"First, a hornbook law covers laws that are basic and commonly known. These laws are commonly accepted, they're like the Accountant's 'GAAP,' or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles." -herfacechair

From legal dictionary:

"hornbook law n. lawyer lingo for a fundamental and well-accepted legal principle that does not require any further explanation, since a hornbook is a primer of basics."

From Cornel.edu:

"Hornbooks are legal texts written expressly for law students by law professors using plain prose. They condense an area of law into a single volume and give a clear overview of the law's evolution, a discussion of courts' interpretation of the law and an explanation of the application of the law today. This presentation of "Black letter law" makes hornbooks an attractive study aid. A hornbook published by West Group identifies itself as such on its cover. West's "Black Letter" series, Aspen's "Examples and Explanations" series and Lexis' "Understanding the Law" legal text series are similar to hornbooks. There is no clear line of demarcation between treatises and hornbooks but as a general rule a hornbook is not as detailed as a treatise and provides fewer references to other sources. Accordingly, hornbooks are not considered persuasive by courts and should be used only for background purposes."

What YOU said:

"It is hornbook law that you have to prosecute a criminal case in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred." -charlestudor2005

Do you see the contrast between your statement and the one I highlighted in bold? I'm not talking about color contrast either.

I didn't try to denigrate the hornbook law. I described it as it was.

charlestudor2005: (4) Yes, there is a long-arm statute. It is used mostly in civil law, and occasionally in criminal law. It does have its limits. For instance the long-arm statutes will not normally let you successfully sue a person who resides in another state if s/he has never done business in the state in which you want to sue.

First, what I actually said:

"You can bring someone up for trial, even if they weren't in your jurisdiction when they committed the crime. This is referred to as the long arm statute. If you, or any of your operations, are within a jurisdiction, that jurisdiction can bring you up on charges." - herfacechair

Second, you're doing here what you essentially accuse me of doing. You're limiting this to the business law aspect, but there are other areas that the long arm statue covers. It's applicable to the Useful Idiot's case, where his website, accessible on US soil, violated US law.

Third, by acknowledging a comment that I made, you counter your opinion that I'm "ignorant" about the law. I'm using those quotations strongly.

charlestudor2005: And it certainly will not allow the US to haul someone into the US that has never set foot here.

Ever heard of Manuel Noriega? Charges got filed against him in 1988. He ended up in a US prison, got charged, and served time.

charlestudor2005: In the final analysis your arguments are infantile and you have the attitude of a middle schooler.

The vast majority of the people that I've debated with hold the same opinion that you do here. Just like many others that I've debated with, you resort to name calling in the absence of a logical argument.

Don't dismiss my persistence, patience, and willingness to conduct a debate like a combat operation, as my arguments being "infantile" and of my "having" an attitude of a middle schooler.

charlestudor2005: Based on your previous posts, I expect you to try and take this post and tear it apart

No "try" about this. You make it easy for me to dismantle your arguments. There's a saying that describes people's actions in a debate. If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have no facts, pound the BS. You're doing the later, and I'm taking you apart with a fact based reasoned argument.

charlestudor2005: with more juvenile nonsense.

Don't dismiss a reasoned argument as "juvenile nonsense." You have to get used to the idea that not everybody is going to break contact from a debate with you.

charlestudor2005: And that's fine, because the only person you embarrass is yourself.

A critical thinking reader would look at this exchange, and notice that based on your arguments, all you'd have to do to "commit suicide" would be to shoot yourself in the foot.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

CT, your last post may be the single most intelligent post in the history of the board. Spot on.

Considering that both of you are part of the opposition and make emotion based arguments, it's not surprising that you're not going to fact check his comment. You don't have a leg to stand on when rating these post's intelligence level.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

To maintain that Assange is just an innocent "journalist" who has protections under freedoms of the press is being ignorant of some facts. Most notably his Afghanistan Diaries" dump in which he published the technology that will defeat WarLock.

Warlock is the US Military's electronic defense against IEDs. And it can be defeated by electronic means which Assange dissimenated.

Assange is a terrorist and threat to the US. He should be dealt with accordingly.

PRECISELY! Are you reading this discreetgent?

[Jackie S]

I will have a little more respect for Wikileak's position as soon as they release some really damaging information about Vladimer Putin.

Of course, the Russians have their own way of cutting through the red tape. You just end up dead.

[charlestudor2005]

You are so predictable. And so wrong.