I-Mockery Forum

I-Mockery Forum (http://i-mockery.com/forum/index.php)
-   Philosophy, Politics, and News (http://i-mockery.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   WikiLeaks (http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69705509)

Zhukov Dec 7th, 2010 09:44 AM

WikiLeaks
 
Have they arrested the wikileaks guy yet? I can't be bothered to google.

Tadao Dec 7th, 2010 11:56 AM

Under what charges?

Dimnos Dec 7th, 2010 12:13 PM

Communist ideology.

The Leader Dec 7th, 2010 12:19 PM

He raped a couple girls in Sweden.

Dimnos Dec 7th, 2010 12:43 PM

I thought that was just hearsay.

Tadao Dec 7th, 2010 12:58 PM

The CIA is back on the job!

Fathom Zero Dec 7th, 2010 01:00 PM

Might be. But it's formal charges, now.

He was charged with that sex by surprise nonsense earlier - I wonder if these are the same girls from that and they were pressured by the government into charging with rape.

elx Dec 7th, 2010 01:01 PM

he was arrested in london, refused bail and he's currently fighting extradition to sweden for sexual molestation charges :(

Dimnos Dec 7th, 2010 03:51 PM

http://yearinreview.yahoo.com/2010/u...010%20Searches

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo
  1. BP Oil Spill
  2. World Cup
  3. Miley Cyrus
  4. Kim Kardashian
  5. Lady Gaga
  6. iPhone
  7. Megan Fox
  8. Justin Bieber
  9. American Idol
  10. Britney Spears

Spoilers!

Blasted Child Dec 7th, 2010 05:01 PM

He definitely didn't rape those girls. That whole affair is just extremely embarrassing for Sweden and our judicial system.
And it's probably just the beginning of all the smear campaigns, setups and dirty business facing Assange. I admire him immensely, and I think if there were more people like him, the world would be a better place.
Tear.

Edit:
Here's the op-ed Assange authored for The Australian yesterday.

Colonel Flagg Dec 7th, 2010 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimnos (Post 706803)
Quote:

Originally Posted by yahoo
  1. BP Oil Spill
  2. World Cup
  3. Miley Cyrus
  4. Kim Kardashian
  5. Lady Gaga
  6. iPhone
  7. Megan Fox
  8. Justin Bieber
  9. American Idol
  10. Britney Spears


Where's Mel Gibson? >:

elx Dec 7th, 2010 06:27 PM

get this- he's not actually being charged with raping those girls, at least not the sort of "rape" we think of. for case one he's being charged with coercion which is considered rape under swedish law. in case two he is being charged with sexual molestation because the condom broke and in sweden unprotected sex = illegal.

so..even if he is guilty all he's done is talk one girl into boning him and had unprotected sex with another? where's finland when you need clarification :(

Fathom Zero Dec 7th, 2010 06:30 PM

Sex by surprise. Yeah, shit's crazy. What's better - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

Get a load of this horseshit.

Dimnos Dec 7th, 2010 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elx (Post 706820)
get this- he's not actually being charged with raping those girls, at least not the sort of "rape" we think of. for case one he's being charged with coercion which is considered rape under swedish law. in case two he is being charged with sexual molestation because the condom broke and in sweden unprotected sex = illegal.

so..even if he is guilty all he's done is talk one girl into boning him and had unprotected sex with another? where's finland when you need clarification :(

By this definition isnt all consensual sex illegal? Way to go Sweden. :rolleyes

Zhukov Dec 8th, 2010 04:16 AM

The whole thing is a bloody disgrace, as usual. I'm looking forward to more leaks of this sort, and hopefully it will start something of a trend in journalism. Assange said that a major US bank is the next target to have it's shit brought out into the public.

WIKILEAKED:

US diplomats 'bargained' with Slovenia and Kiribati to take Guantanamo Bay captives in exchange for a visit from Obama (maybe it was Oprah?) or million dollar economic deals.

Russian government has ties with organised crime and mafia.

US ambassador in Sri Lanka admits that the government has closed all investigations into war crimes against Tamils.

US Embassy found Afghanistan's vice president carrying $52 million in cash during a trip to Dubai in 2009. Left well alone.

US diplomats in Sth America told to concentrate on isolating and undermining Venezuela. Other left wing governments targeted for 'information collection'.

US ambassador to Honduras describes violent military coup there to be "clearly illegal" and "illegitimate". Left well alone.

Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan pressure US to attack Iran.

Saudi nationals biggest donors to Al-Qaeda. Left well alone.

Israel and US chats about preemptive strikes on Iran; what to do, what not to do.

Pentegarn Dec 8th, 2010 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blasted Child (Post 706808)
He definitely didn't rape those girls. That whole affair is just extremely embarrassing for Sweden and our judicial system.
And it's probably just the beginning of all the smear campaigns, setups and dirty business facing Assange. I admire him immensely, and I think if there were more people like him, the world would be a better place.
Tear.

Edit:
Here's the op-ed Assange authored for The Australian yesterday.

You admire a guy who is a hacker? A guy who steals information that should never be public and makes it so? You admire a man who's actions show him to be an anarchist? You want more people like him around?

I got news for you, there are more people in te world like him, people who have no respect for privacy rights, people who are at their heart anarchists, and they are stealing identities right and left.

Maybe if you were a victim of these people, or had any empathy whatsoever for those who have been, your viewpoint would be different. These sorts of people are leeches and have no value to society, they are not heroes, they are criminals.

Of course there will be a smear campaign against him, and he will be fought by any means necessary. He has already proven he cannot be trusted. This isn't the first time someone dangerous has been stopped by alternate means. Al Capone was a horrible man who dodged justice as well. In the end they could not pin the crimes he was responsible for on him, so they stopped him by getting him for tax evasion.

Zhukov Dec 8th, 2010 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 706879)
You admire a guy who is a hacker? A guy who steals information that should never be public and makes it so? You admire a man who's actions show him to be an anarchist? You want more people like him around?

Information that should never be made public. Is there really ever such a thing? Is there some truth out there that SHOULD be kept secret so that nobody will ever find out, ever, lest it endanger human kind somehow? So far, no. Everything put through wikileaks are things that the public should know about their governments. The torture of people, the use of banned weapons on civilians, the war talk, and plotting to topple democratically elected governments.... people should know these truths, then they can decide if they want those sort of things to go on in the world. If you want to argue that plotting to attack Iran should be secret from IRAN lest they strike first and kill people etc etc.... do you really think Iran isn't planning war against the US as well?

"Lives are at stake" is something that I have heard several times on the news; but I haven't heard how they are a stake, whose lives and why. Weigh it up: which is more likely, that your government doesn't want people knowing about human rights abuses and shady political bullshit.... or that they are concerned people will get hurt as a result of people finding out about Israel bombing people with phosphorus artillery....?

It's not terrorism to break the news to the world that there is sort of shit going on. Don't shoot the messenger.

Oh, and I've read nothing about him that would suggest he is an anarchist. If he was then I would have more respect for him than now.
Quote:

I got news for you, there are more people in te world like him, people who have no respect for privacy rights, people who are at their heart anarchists, and they are stealing identities right and left.
You're saying that Julian Assange is stealing people's identities, and has no respect for privacy rights? Who's privacy rights? A government should have no right to privacy, and should be open to the people it claims to defend and serve. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if it has THESE secrets that we now know about, what else isn't your government (and mine, and his, and hers) telling you?

I think Assange was charged with some cyber hacking in his yoof, which you may be referring to, but that's not what he is doing now. He's not hacking government websites to steal info, he is offering a medium for whistle-blowers to get their stuff out there. Isn't some US private still being held in prison without trial over being a whistle-blower on Abu-Gahrib prisoner abuses, or something along those lines? You punish the person that speaks up about abuse and torture, but not the torturers. Nice.


Quote:

Maybe if you were a victim of these people, or had any empathy whatsoever for those who have been, your viewpoint would be different. These sorts of people are leeches and have no value to society, they are not heroes, they are criminals.
Which victims? The US government? Several governments have been forced to address facts about their actions. Things which should ALWAYS be under public scrutiny. If you know of any human victims, then let me know.

Quote:

Of course there will be a smear campaign against him, and he will be fought by any means necessary. He has already proven he cannot be trusted. This isn't the first time someone dangerous has been stopped by alternate means. Al Capone was a horrible man who dodged justice as well. In the end they could not pin the crimes he was responsible for on him, so they stopped him by getting him for tax evasion.
Alternate means to justice. Nice. I doubt he will end up dead any time soon, although I'm not writing it off completely, but you really think he doesn't deserve a trial in his OWN country? This is a really horrible thing about today; your government tells you that they are terrorists, and since they are terrorists they don't deserve the right to prove otherwise. You think that lies should be told to fight him, and that any means should be used to stop him, that's a reall.... ah, it just hit me, am I being.... trolled?

Kitsa Dec 8th, 2010 09:36 AM

Am I the only one who thinks of Bond villains every time I look at that guy? Something about him just screams Bond villain.

Guitar Woman Dec 8th, 2010 09:48 AM

I thought those guys lived in hollowed-out secret volcano lairs, not couch-surfing in Europe.

Pentagarn, are you trolling? Goddamn. Anarchy != chaos, go to college and/or wikipedia to learn things

I thought the "lives at stake" thing sprung from how he released a billion thousand Afghanistan Black Ops dox, which terrorists could peruse at their leisure for info on how the military works, and find weaknesses to exploit. To someone who's only been arsed to read about ten of the leaked documents, this sounds credible, I guess? What I saw was more like police reports than disclosure of vital combat stratagems. Like, "We recieved tips that these guys were cultivating poppies to pay for terroristy shit, so we went and checked them out. They had a shit ton of opium, so we took them into custody."

Of course, with the new stuff, it's like America's diary has been photocopied and mailed to everyone else at school, and we've done nothing in it but talk shit about everyone while also making plans to exploit them for fun and profit. Anyone with enough balls to release something like that has my vote, because that is hilarious.

Zhukov Dec 8th, 2010 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitar Woman (Post 706888)
I thought the "lives at stake" thing sprung from how he released a billion thousand Afghanistan Black Ops dox, which terrorists could peruse at their leisure for info on how the military works, and find weaknesses to exploit.

Yes, that's the argument. But it's bunkum because it's basically just what you described; war logs. 'Lives at Risk' is the best that they can come up with to defend the secrecy about the whole business, from war logs to human rights abuse, to diplomatic embarrassments. Actively ignoring war crimes is probably more risky for peoples lives.

Kitsa, it's the whitish hair and the black suit/shirt combo that he likes to sport.

Dimnos Dec 8th, 2010 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
... <lots of good points>

I have to agree with Zhukov on this one. As far as his work at Wikileaks goes the guy isnt guilty of anything other than enforcing the freedom of information act. This kind of stuff needs to be out their.

Colonel Flagg Dec 8th, 2010 01:36 PM

For one, I'd like to see a few more leaks targeting, for example, secret documents out of Beijing, Moscow, or - dare I say it - al-Qaeda. But I realize it's more cachet to embarrass the "ugly Americans".

Kit - he's no Blofeld, but I definitely see the connection.

The Leader Dec 8th, 2010 02:08 PM

You wouldn't get leaks out of Beijing or Moscow because anyone like Pfc. Bradley Manning who did something like that in those places would suddenly disappear. :x

Dimnos Dec 8th, 2010 02:32 PM

I thought some of what they released was from Moscow. Didnt they link Putin to knowledge of the Litvinenko murder?

Tadao Dec 8th, 2010 02:35 PM

I'M SHOCKED THAT THE U.S. ACTS IN SUCH A WAY!

Also I think every country knows the U.S. is doing all this.

What shocks me is that any country would be all NO WE WOULD NEVER ACT LIKE THAT IF WE WERE GIVEN THE CHANCE.

Fathom Zero Dec 8th, 2010 02:41 PM

Someone laid out exactly how the leaks wouldn't hurt troops but fuck if I can actually find it. :(

Dimnos Dec 8th, 2010 02:54 PM

I think I read something like that over at the BBC.

Tadao Dec 8th, 2010 03:02 PM

It's not like our government isn't bright enough to use leaked documents to make the enemy think they have the upper hand, then SURPRISE! If I was at the table, I would be suggesting leaking a few "truths" to gain advantage.

Fathom Zero Dec 8th, 2010 03:03 PM

You know what wouldn't hurt the troops? Leaving!

HHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH WHAT A FUNNY JOKE YOU SEE

Dimnos Dec 8th, 2010 03:10 PM

Fuck the troops. They just got laser guided grenade launchers. :rolleyes

Dimnos Dec 8th, 2010 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.


Pentegarn Dec 8th, 2010 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
Information that should never be made public. Is there really ever such a thing?

Military secrets. Telling the world where a government is placing troops is doing just that, of course you hate America so I am not even going to try and persuade you why this is wrong to do to any country, but I will ask you to tell me how you would feel if it were done to say, China, or Cuba?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
Is there some truth out there that SHOULD be kept secret so that nobody will ever find out, ever, lest it endanger human kind somehow? So far, no. Everything put through wikileaks are things that the public should know about their governments. The torture of people, the use of banned weapons on civilians, the war talk, and plotting to topple democratically elected governments.... people should know these truths, then they can decide if they want those sort of things to go on in the world. If you want to argue that plotting to attack Iran should be secret from IRAN lest they strike first and kill people etc etc.... do you really think Iran isn't planning war against the US as well?

So then why isn't he doing the same thing to other countries? Why only the US? Until he does, this counterargument comes off as empty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
"Lives are at stake" is something that I have heard several times on the news; but I haven't heard how they are a stake, whose lives and why. Weigh it up: which is more likely, that your government doesn't want people knowing about human rights abuses and shady political bullshit.... or that they are concerned people will get hurt as a result of people finding out about Israel bombing people with phosphorus artillery....?

Again, until I see him do this to other countries besides the US, I have to assume this is an anti American act of cyber-terrorism, and defending it comes off as just anti American sour grapes. If you want to defend what he did because you hate America, be a man and say so. But don't pretend to be altruistic about it when this is a single target expose and when we all know much worse human rights violations are going on unexposed in many other countries (North Korea anyone?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
It's not terrorism to break the news to the world that there is sort of shit going on. Don't shoot the messenger.

But it is terrorism to threaten to drop more information as he keeps repeatedly doing. If he was as altruistic as you you are now implying, why not drop it all? Why this slow leak? Could it be he wants to hit the snooze alarm repeatedly on his 15 minutes of fame? Seems that way to me, and his actions support this view

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
Oh, and I've read nothing about him that would suggest he is an anarchist. If he was then I would have more respect for him than now.

I judge a man by his actions, and to me his actions are those of an anarchist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
You're saying that Julian Assange is stealing people's identities, and has no respect for privacy rights?

I compared his hacking to another group who hacks and steals information for personal gain. His personal gain is fame, theirs is money, neither are doing it for selfless reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
Who's privacy rights? A government should have no right to privacy, and should be open to the people it claims to defend and serve. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if it has THESE secrets that we now know about, what else isn't your government (and mine, and his, and hers) telling you?

Classified information is classified for a reason. You act like the US is the first country in the universe to ever have secrets. I am willing to bet the USSR has stories that would make your skin crawl with things they did that violated human rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
I think Assange was charged with some cyber hacking in his yoof, which you may be referring to, but that's not what he is doing now. He's not hacking government websites to steal info, he is offering a medium for whistle-blowers to get their stuff out there. Isn't some US private still being held in prison without trial over being a whistle-blower on Abu-Gahrib prisoner abuses, or something along those lines? You punish the person that speaks up about abuse and torture, but not the torturers. Nice.


Which victims? The US government? Several governments have been forced to address facts about their actions. Things which should ALWAYS be under public scrutiny. If you know of any human victims, then let me know.

This one is easy to address, if he is whistle blowing military secrets (like exposing where US stations troops) then we are compromised strategically, which can lead to a diminished military, which can in turn lead to another attack on US soil. I personally have seen enough of that for one lifetime and do not want to tempt other groups to attack us because our military has been compromised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 706883)
Alternate means to justice. Nice. I doubt he will end up dead any time soon, although I'm not writing it off completely, but you really think he doesn't deserve a trial in his OWN country? This is a really horrible thing about today; your government tells you that they are terrorists, and since they are terrorists they don't deserve the right to prove otherwise. You think that lies should be told to fight him, and that any means should be used to stop him, that's a reall.... ah, it just hit me, am I being.... trolled?

Don't you think to get a trial in your country you should commit crimes against that country instead of another one? If you don't want to be on trial in the US try this simple tip; don't commit crimes against the US

That's like saying a woman who gets raped in America by a foreigner has no rights to justice because the rapist was from another country. You just think he should avoid the US justice system because it was a crime against an entity you clearly dislike

Dimnos Dec 8th, 2010 06:37 PM

Of the documents released by Wikileaks the most recent come from February and I doubt they pertained to troop placement. Most of what was released that did have to do with that kind of thing was what we were doing the last few years. As in shit that is already done and gone.

As far as "targeting America" I think thats unfair. Just because American whistle blowers come forward / release info 10:1 compared to other countries doesnt necessarily mean he is anti-America. Someone in this thread, I think The Leader, pointed out how a whistle blower in China or Russia was more likely to turn up missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Leader (Post 706912)
You wouldn't get leaks out of Beijing or Moscow because anyone like Pfc. Bradley Manning who did something like that in those places would suddenly disappear. :x

How is it cyber-terrorism? Our own diplomats and military personnel leaked it to him. He is just distributing it to other news outlets to make available to the public. Like Ron Paul said in the article I posted he should have the same protection that the media gets. Remember a few years ago when our own VP outed whats her name as a secret agent or whatever? Nothing happened to him. Remember when the war in Iraq started and Geraldo gave away troop positions on a news broadcast? Sure people gave him hell for it but nothing really happened to him and that pertained to events happening that day. Not some assault that happened two years before.

Classified information? Just because someone in a position of authority stamps something classified we shouldnt even question it? Just because? What if what they are doing is illegal and wrong? As far as the USSR goes... Part of what he released, while coming from American diplomat offices, detailed the dirty laundry of other countries. I mentioned it before some of the documents linked Putin to the Litvinenko murder and the Russian government in general as having ties to organized crime. The only difference here is we didnt really need leaked documents to know that about Russia.

Zhukov Dec 8th, 2010 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 706945)
Military secrets. Telling the world where a government is placing troops is doing just that, of course you hate America so I am not even going to try and persuade you why this is wrong to do to any country, but I will ask you to tell me how you would feel if it were done to say, China, or Cuba?

I hate the US government, but I'd say I hate the Chinese government more. I strongly dislike the Cuban government. I don't hate Americans, Chinese or Cubans. I don't know what my personal views on nations has anything to do with anything right now though. I would feel great if more information was leaked about more governments; the more the merrier. If they start realising that they are slightly more accountable for their actions than before, then maybe less human rights abuses etc will happen.

Quote:

So then why isn't he doing the same thing to other countries? Why only the US? Until he does, this counterargument comes off as empty.
He isn't personally 'hacking' US government websites or crap like that, he is providing a medium for OTHER WHISTLE-BLOWERS to post their information so that the world can see it. He is not personally collecting anything, the website relies on people that have become fed up at seeing criminal activity go on behind closed curtains and want to speak out about it. Other countries have been mentioned in the wikileaks quite often, including Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka... you don't read that because you are watching the news in America and it's only the SAFETY OF AMERICA that is the issue with wikileaks.

Hopefully people from more nations choose to speak out about criminal activities that their governments are responsible for. We all know it happens, but when it comes to light as fact, something you can't dodge, then more and more people will demand change.


Quote:

Again, until I see him do this to other countries besides the US, I have to assume this is an anti American act of cyber-terrorism, and defending it comes off as just anti American sour grapes. If you want to defend what he did because you hate America, be a man and say so. But don't pretend to be altruistic about it when this is a single target expose and when we all know much worse human rights violations are going on unexposed in many other countries (North Korea anyone?)
Again, he's not 'targeting' any one nation since all he is doing is providing an avenue for (so far) predominately US whistle-blowers. It's highly unlikely that documents pertaining to North Korean activities will surface, since it's highly unlikely that any North Korean with access to said information would survive.

All we have to go on about Nth Korean abuses stems from defectors, some reasonably high ranking, that have pretty much 'exposed' all the information that any sane person would need. Who doesn't know that North Korea is a horrible place to live where government sanctioned torture and crime, as well as political espionage etc, goes on daily?

Not that it has anything to do with Julian Assange or wikileaks, since they can't magic up a whistle-blower from nowhere, and can't hack into Nth Korean government documents, but do we NEED Nth Korean leaked information, or do we need to find out the secrets from the western governments, the ones that claim to serve and protect us and the ones that claim their wars are legal, and that torture is not something they partake in? We need to know what is going on with our own governments (and I really hope that more Australian documents come to light) since you and I are citizens of our own countries, and can affect change if needed.




Quote:

But it is terrorism to threaten to drop more information as he keeps repeatedly doing. If he was as altruistic as you you are now implying, why not drop it all? Why this slow leak? Could it be he wants to hit the snooze alarm repeatedly on his 15 minutes of fame? Seems that way to me, and his actions support this view
Why drop it all at once when the information will just get lost in a sea of information? That's counter-productive to the aim - let people know what is going on. Plus, all the information doesn't come out at the same time, it trickles in, so it trickles out.

Interesting note that I was unaware of at first, before the first major leak of US documents, all 500 thousand odd cables were made available to US analysis. Wikileaks itself checked all the content and blanked out any names they thought might be too sensitive or too dangerous to put in public.

Requests by wikileaks for the documents to be reviewed by the US were rejected. Wikileaks sent to the US ambassador in London a request: that wikileaks "would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances ... where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm..."

Obviously the US government isn't too concerned about 'lives at risk' since it rejected the call on the grounds that US departments would "not engage in a negotiation" with wikileaks about the documents. Surely it would have been better for those at supposed risk if you read through the documents and blanked their names? Even IF you believed wikileaks wouldn't follow through on it's promise to respect such instances of individual risk, wouldn't it be better to TRY rather than just WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS and leave it at that? Wikileaks still blanked out many names, as previously stated, in the interests of privacy.


Quote:

I compared his hacking to another group who hacks and steals information for personal gain. His personal gain is fame, theirs is money, neither are doing it for selfless reasons.
That's a pretty big stretch of a comparison... the only link is that you think neither of them do what the do for personal gain. Santa Clause is just like a rapist, since they both do what they do to get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside themselves. Santa gives gifts, and a rapist rapes, but still - the same. Who is this 'other group' that hacks for money, by the way?

So you think that Julian Assange is doing all this for fame? The guy has had calls to assassinate him, serious ones. People in the US government have asked for him to be hunted down and neutralised. Fame? Honestly, there are better ways. It's a lot of work just for 'fame'. Wikileaks has been operating for, what, 5 years, and Assange himself is only just now 'famous', and I honestly believe that he would prefer it if he wasn't so widely known.


Quote:

Classified information is classified for a reason. You act like the US is the first country in the universe to ever have secrets. I am willing to bet the USSR has stories that would make your skin crawl with things they did that violated human rights.
You don't need to guess at what the USSR did to violate human rights, since a lot of documents were made public over the years since the break up of the USSR. You don't need to hit me in the guts with how bad the USSR was in cases of human rights; I am a more honest critic of the Soviet Union than most.

How do you know that classified information is classified for a GOOD reason? It's classified so that normal every day people don't get a chance to decide for themselves. Who decides what should be classified and what shouldn't? The same people that the classified documents are about... doesn't that strike you as a little bit of a bias? Knowing what we know now about most of these 'classified documents', they are kept secret for the sole reason that people wouldn't find out about criminal behaviour and therefore not endanger lives, but endanger the system of abuse the US government upholds.

Why do Sri Lankan war crimes need to be kept classified? Most of the leaked documents are classified because it is scandalous criminal activity that is going on - the exact same things that citizens of any country should know about their government.


Quote:

This one is easy to address, if he is whistle blowing military secrets (like exposing where US stations troops) then we are compromised strategically, which can lead to a diminished military, which can in turn lead to another attack on US soil. I personally have seen enough of that for one lifetime and do not want to tempt other groups to attack us because our military has been compromised.
I personaly haven't seen (I haven't read a large percentage of the hundreds of thousands of documents, surprise, surprise) any troop placement documents; if there are then I actually don't see it as that big a deal. What information is being given away? Where the US military ahs bases? I thought most of that was common knowledge. Just because Al-Qaeda finds out that you have a base in Swaziland doesn't mean that they will attack it, I figure they have enough targets as it is. Iran finding out about your secret bases on it's border would be something different, but I would say that setting up secret bases in sensitive places with a need for secrecy is asking for an attack anyhow. The point still stands though that Julian Assange is not blowing whistles on military secrets, wikileaks has provided an avenue for US military personnel to blow whistles.


Quote:

Don't you think to get a trial in your country you should commit crimes against that country instead of another one? If you don't want to be on trial in the US try this simple tip; don't commit crimes against the US

That's like saying a woman who gets raped in America by a foreigner has no rights to justice because the rapist was from another country. You just think he should avoid the US justice system because it was a crime against an entity you clearly dislike
He hasn't committed any crimes, nor will he get a trial in ANY country, most likely. A kangaroo court, perhaps. Better a trial by the US justice system than a US military tribunal, or 'sustained detention'.

What I was referring to though was thee fact that our PM has called him a criminal and said his actions are illegal. I think US officials have just stated how they want him to disappear, not that he has broken the law. If he has supposedly committed a crime against Australia (Which is unlikely) then if he is captured/detained (which is likely) he should get a fair trial in Australia. Note that you need to have proper reasons to BRING him to trial first. Or should.

MLE Dec 9th, 2010 12:09 AM

Jesus christ walls of text from everyone. I don't see why people are hating on this guy. It seems he's trying to start a revolution against all the censorship the country has been letting seep in. This government was SUPPOSED to be transparent. That's why they CAME here. Y'know.

Zhukov Dec 9th, 2010 12:19 AM

Eh, you start typing and you can't stop.

Thanks for splitting the thread, I was actually going to suggest it.

Dimnos Dec 9th, 2010 12:27 AM

If the US government actually puts him on trial for any such charges that in itself will give them more of a black eye than anything he could ever do.

Tadao Dec 9th, 2010 12:35 AM

WTF guys, we aren't pussies over here. We are gonna find him, forcibly bring him back, then stick him in a box until we feel like abusing him. OH NO! The people might think less of us! In the last 20 years have seen no reason to believe that my government gives 2 shits about what the people think of them.

Blasted Child Dec 9th, 2010 04:09 AM

Pentegarn, you make it sound like Assange has personally hacked computers world-wide just to disclose random secrets.
As Zhukov has pointed out, all he's done is provide a platform for whistle blowers. And the material published there is not protected by ethical principals of confidenitality - like patients' journals or personal details - instead it's conversations between the powers that be, dialogues between ambassadeurs and politicians elected by us, the people.
As a Swede I'm interested in knowing that Sweden has secretly more or less joined NATO, and has ongoing deals and agreements with the USA that hardly even our prime minister knows about.
I don't think you should regard this as an attack aimed specially at the USA; I think virtually all governments and secret agencies etc will get their fair share.

Zhukov Dec 9th, 2010 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blasted Child (Post 707016)
As a Swede I'm interested in knowing that Sweden has secretly more or less joined NATO, and has ongoing deals and agreements with the USA that hardly even our prime minister knows about.

That's actually really, really outrageous. This is the kind of thing that a people NEED to know about, because it affects them and THEIR safety. If an Australian government made some behind closed doors deal with the US to go to war with Iran or Nth Korea if war did happen to break out, or something along those lines, I would want to know. All Australians would want to know. If the US has a secret deal with Israel to go to war beside them if it breaks out with Iran... I'm sure you and every other American would want to know that.

That kind of 'classified' deal is the kind of thing that will end in people being harmed, killed, tortured, displaced etc. The secrets and lies of governments surrounding the Iraq and Afghan wars are responsible for more deaths than any documents on wikileaks will ever be.

Pentegarn Dec 9th, 2010 07:11 AM

I get why you and Zhukov would feel the way you do. That being said I still think that some things are best left a secret. In fact because of the way the government in America exists I would go as far as to say it is pointless in many cases to leak secrets at all (putting aside the military ones I mean, which I still maintain should never be disclosed by or even to the private sector) because our elected officials often do not stay in power for very long (a trend that is starting to show even in places where there are no term limits to speak of).

Tadao kind of brushed against that point in his last statement. The reason the US government has little to no regard for their image has a lot to do with these term limits.

So lets say WikiLeaks dros a full disclosure on all the things that happened while Bush Jr. was in power, what will exposing and wrist slapping the current president really accomplish? Nothing, Bush Jr. is no longer in power and Obama had nothing to do with what he did, he is far too busy committing his own crimes to care what Bush Jr did, and whoever replaces Obama will care about as much about what Obama is doing now.

So let's say the UN drops all sorts of trade embargos to punish the US government, well what is the point then? The criminal is no longer in power, and the US as a country is now hurt economically. But who is that really hurting? The answer is it is hurting people (US citizens mostly) who had nothing to do with the crime itself. So in this call for blood all we would really accomplish is crippling the innocent economically.

Zhukov Dec 9th, 2010 07:59 AM

Honestly dude, you have got to be joking. Don't bother about war crimes or criminal espionage because, hey, it all happened under HIS election, not the current one. I mean, really.

So I guess you don't think the Nuremberg trials should have gone ahead? I mean, Hitler was cactus already.


Pentegarn, if you want to be apathetic towards what your country is doing then fine. Just don't assume that other people are ok with letting all this shit wash over them; in the US or around the world.

Blasted Child Dec 9th, 2010 10:11 AM

I don't think wikileak's main purpose is to point fingers, or create scapegoats, but to try to change the rhetoric amongst those in power, and increase transparency. To tell tax payers and voters all over the world that, "look, this is the cynical jargon of your representatives, this is how they secretly trade and deal and form unholy pacts."

When people with political or economical power remain unscrutinized for too long, corruption and negligence will grow. We must always pressure them to remain open and frank. This time they were caught with their pants down, let's just applaud those who enabled us to see it.

Fathom Zero Dec 9th, 2010 10:35 AM

I think they're goals are a little more earnest than the shitty Anonymous' "Let's Troll the Man" policy.

Pentegarn Dec 9th, 2010 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707021)
Honestly dude, you have got to be joking. Don't bother about war crimes or criminal espionage because, hey, it all happened under HIS election, not the current one. I mean, really.

So I guess you don't think the Nuremberg trials should have gone ahead? I mean, Hitler was cactus already.


Pentegarn, if you want to be apathetic towards what your country is doing then fine. Just don't assume that other people are ok with letting all this shit wash over them; in the US or around the world.

So it doesn't matter who gets punished as long as someone does? Really?

Nice try on playing the Nuremberg trials card, but those were individuals on trial, you keep calling an entire country out though and you don't seem to be asking 'how will my bloodlust effect the innocent?' If you want the individuals responsible thats fine, but quit it with America needs to pay. I don't recall having a say in what was done in these things leaked, yet according to you I, along with all the other citizens trying to just live their lives, should be punished because you think "America needs to pay"

EDIT: Also, kind of hypocritical to think one kind of criminal espionage is perfectly acceptable (wikileaks) and another kind is wrong (anything done by an American)

MLE Dec 9th, 2010 08:49 PM

effect affect the innocent

kahljorn Dec 9th, 2010 10:41 PM

If wikileaks "Targetted" any other country, they prolly woulda been arrested or some shit already.

Zhukov Dec 10th, 2010 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 707101)
So it doesn't matter who gets punished as long as someone does? Really?

Uh, what? I never said that. That's why I referenced the Nuremberg trials since it was the same people that committed crimes that were being punished.


Quote:

Nice try on playing the Nuremberg trials card, but those were individuals on trial, you keep calling an entire country out though and you don't seem to be asking 'how will my bloodlust effect the innocent?' If you want the individuals responsible thats fine, but quit it with America needs to pay. I don't recall having a say in what was done in these things leaked, yet according to you I, along with all the other citizens trying to just live their lives, should be punished because you think "America needs to pay"
Again: what? I didn't say anything about 'calling an entire country out' or saying America needs to pay. Did anyone? You're just fucking with me, aren't you? :\

Pentegarn Dec 10th, 2010 07:29 AM

You didn't have to say it, I am just following your logic to the proper conclusion. Just think about what you are proposing for a moment.

What exactly do you think will be the result of all this?

If the individuals are to be punished, who will do it? The UN? Well according to you people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country so it couldn't be the UN, as the US will not recognize their jurisdiction to do so. As I am pretty sure the US won't bother putting the politicians on trial who did these things, that would be a wash.

Well that would then leave current leaders that the world would demand pay. The current leadership however did not have a thing to do with what happened, so again, if we follow your axiom that a criminal face their charges in their home country only, you will get nothing as a result.

Now the world is even more pissed and at this point the UN steps in, they have only one thing they can do at this point, sanctions that likely would jack up the import taxes the US pays. The only people that will hurt though is the common man because those jacked up costs will get passed on to the consumer. The economy here is already hurting enough, we have people in numbers rivaling the amount there were in the 70s not making ends meet. What do you suppose will happen to those people when this demand for justice reaches this inevitable point?

People all over the world get away with all sorts of horrible things all the time, and the reason many of these things go unpunished is because the consequences of punishment have a ripple effect on those who have nothing to do with the crime in question. The world is not as black and white as a political leader gets punished and then that's it. Look at Iraq. Did Saddam need punished? The black and white answer is yes. But look how it actually shook out. Do you honestly believe it was better for an outside entity to force a punishment on a sovereign nation? The country is mired in civil war, rampant terrorism, and has no real organized security to speak of. All because Bush Jr. made a demand for justice that was not thought out to the inevitable conclusion it was bound to have.

Zhukov Dec 10th, 2010 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 707144)

What exactly do you think will be the result of all this?

That's actually a good question. What I think will be the result to 'all of this' is some more leaked information on large banking corporations, the eventual shutting down of wikileaks, and perhaps new laws in some countries preventing it from happening again and making it illegal. I would also say that the positive result is that more people around the globe will have less trust in the political and economic systems which supposedly serve their needs, and perhaps be more inclined to not take everything their government says or does as right and truthful.

Quote:

If the individuals are to be punished, who will do it? The UN? Well according to you people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country so it couldn't be the UN, as the US will not recognize their jurisdiction to do so. As I am pretty sure the US won't bother putting the politicians on trial who did these things, that would be a wash.
You know, I never actually brought up punishment, and I don't see it as a likely outcome anyhow. You're right in thinking that a trial in the US for anyone committing political or war crimes or some such would be a white wash.

No, I didn't say "people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country" or thereabouts, I said that Assange hasn't done anything illegal, BUT out Prime Minister has insinuated that he has, calling his actions criminal, but not bothering to tell us what crimes. I said that if he has broken Australian laws then he should at least be told what the charges are and given a chance to defend against them, rather than just have the label of CRIMINAL stuck on him and hunted down for the US governments behalf. If, however, people do commit international crimes, such as war crimes, then I think that the UN is capable of handling the trial. Well, better than anyone else at the moment. This has gotten off topic though, as neither I nor Blasted Child have mentioned anything about bringing any criminals to justice.

Quote:

Well that would then leave current leaders that the world would demand pay. The current leadership however did not have a thing to do with what happened, so again, if we follow your axiom that a criminal face their charges in their home country only, you will get nothing as a result.
I don't understand this. I will say however that US ambassadors, diplomats, spies, military generals and other ranks... I don't think they get voted in and out every few years. But I don't really know what you are saying here.

Quote:

Now the world is even more pissed and at this point the UN steps in, they have only one thing they can do at this point, sanctions that likely would jack up the import taxes the US pays. The only people that will hurt though is the common man because those jacked up costs will get passed on to the consumer. The economy here is already hurting enough, we have people in numbers rivaling the amount there were in the 70s not making ends meet. What do you suppose will happen to those people when this demand for justice reaches this inevitable point?
Again, nobody is calling for sanctions against the US. I have no idea where you got this from. Let's just hope that you are against the sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba also, though. Perhaps even Nth Korea, since that definitely only hurts the working people.


Quote:

People all over the world get away with all sorts of horrible things all the time, and the reason many of these things go unpunished is because the consequences of punishment have a ripple effect on those who have nothing to do with the crime in question. The world is not as black and white as a political leader gets punished and then that's it. Look at Iraq. Did Saddam need punished? The black and white answer is yes. But look how it actually shook out. Do you honestly believe it was better for an outside entity to force a punishment on a sovereign nation? The country is mired in civil war, rampant terrorism, and has no real organized security to speak of. All because Bush Jr. made a demand for justice that was not thought out to the inevitable conclusion it was bound to have.
I think we are beyond viewing the Iraq war as a strive for 'justice'. Perhaps weapons of mass destruction..? Anyway, again, nobody is talking about justice. We are talking about the rights of citizens to know what their government is up to. Should Saddam have been allowed to keep his torture secret and classified? The gassing of Kurds?

Should the Watergate scandal have been kept classified?

We're talking about the transparency of government, and you are bringing up arguments against punishing people.

The Leader Dec 10th, 2010 12:07 PM

Listen, all that I'm saying is that if a country is irresponsible enough to choose communism, then it is our duty as the United States to correct them.

Dimnos Dec 10th, 2010 12:17 PM

I think our own Secretary of State who encouraged US diplomats to illegally gather info on UN personnel and their foreign constituents should at least be fired. :\ Of course I am a little bias on this topic because I think she is a dumb bitch anyway and that hiring her in the first place was one of the worst things Obama ever did.

Tadao Dec 10th, 2010 02:27 PM

I'm pretty impressed with Pent for looking at the end results. Of course everyone has a different ending, but most people only see what they can immediately put in their greedy little hands, and that is exactly what the world leaders count on.

kahljorn Dec 10th, 2010 09:32 PM

Why have transparency of Government anyway? its not like people are smart enough to make use of the information. it'd probably just cause fake internet scandal after fake internet scandal and people would get all worked up about shit that doesn't really matter like, "DID YOU HEAR THE GOVERNMENT KILLED ALL THE PUPPIES IN EGYPT."

Pentegarn Dec 11th, 2010 08:10 AM

First and foremost, I am enjoying this discussion immensely. A ton of good stuff was said in the last 24 hours and I am sorry I missed out on it till now

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707153)
That's actually a good question. What I think will be the result to 'all of this' is some more leaked information on large banking corporations, the eventual shutting down of wikileaks, and perhaps new laws in some countries preventing it from happening again and making it illegal. I would also say that the positive result is that more people around the globe will have less trust in the political and economic systems which supposedly serve their needs, and perhaps be more inclined to not take everything their government says or does as right and truthful.

While I maintain that not much of anything will happen to anyone, I think people already don't trust their government, so this whole expose aspect was pointless other then to provide specific examples. The only thing wikileaks did was give the world more reason to hate America, I won't go into why this hurts the common man as I covered my viewpoint on this earlier, but I will again reiterate that this is bad and at the very least, I don't see that anything good can come from this in respect to the common man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707153)
You know, I never actually brought up punishment, and I don't see it as a likely outcome anyhow. You're right in thinking that a trial in the US for anyone committing political or war crimes or some such would be a white wash.

No, I didn't say "people who commit a crime, no matter where they commit it need to have it done in their country" or thereabouts, I said that Assange hasn't done anything illegal, BUT out Prime Minister has insinuated that he has, calling his actions criminal, but not bothering to tell us what crimes. I said that if he has broken Australian laws then he should at least be told what the charges are and given a chance to defend against them, rather than just have the label of CRIMINAL stuck on him and hunted down for the US governments behalf. If, however, people do commit international crimes, such as war crimes, then I think that the UN is capable of handling the trial. Well, better than anyone else at the moment. This has gotten off topic though, as neither I nor Blasted Child have mentioned anything about bringing any criminals to justice.

But how can you say Assange starting all this is not an international crime while another kind of espionage is? Assange is the spearhead for this mess, and what he did is orchestrate an internet espionage ring. This isn't journalism, if he really wanted this info to be exposed because of an altruistic belief, then by all means he should have sent it to a media outlet. The fact that he made his own site supports my belief that he is a fame hog. I know you think that the results of this fame (his life being under constant threat) disproves my theory, but I disagree with that. People all the time get something they wished for without any foreknowledge of the consequences, only to realize that what they wished for was more hassle than they believed possible. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it is a proverb for a reason.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707153)
I don't understand this. I will say however that US ambassadors, diplomats, spies, military generals and other ranks... I don't think they get voted in and out every few years. But I don't really know what you are saying here.

These people you listed take their orders from our elected officials, and it is rare for a member of the military to go maverick (though it can happen, hence why we have Court Martials). Those elected offficials rarely last more than a term these days because as a country we have been swinging back and fourth politically every 4 years for the past decade.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707153)
I think we are beyond viewing the Iraq war as a strive for 'justice'. Perhaps weapons of mass destruction..?

This is a separate topic altogether. Though as an aside Bush did keep saying repeatedly we are coming to inspect for years. The desert is a big place and there was plenty of time to bury and hide anything incriminating.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707153)
Anyway, again, nobody is talking about justice. We are talking about the rights of citizens to know what their government is up to. Should Saddam have been allowed to keep his torture secret and classified? The gassing of Kurds?

These things were public though. These things were the counterargument of people who were supporting the war when the WMDs were not there. This is exactly what I mean when i said look at what could happen. We had multiple 'reasons for justice' to go into Iraq, but as it turns out that was a huge mistake.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707153)
Should the Watergate scandal have been kept classified?

We had press with integrity in those days, or at least press without a glaring political agenda. You would be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how much stuff does not get revealed in a timely fashion, or just gets glossed over on page 10 of the NY Times because to bring attention to it does not fit the agenda of the news source.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707153)
We're talking about the transparency of government, and you are bringing up arguments against punishing people.

Because I am talking results. It takes wisdom to see that everything has a result and takes even more wisdom to exercise caution when you act. Revealing everything would bring about a shit storm of epic proportions, I don't think you realize just how bad it would be, and there would be a world wide ripple effect as a result of sudden worldwide government transparency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao (Post 707175)
Of course everyone has a different ending, but most people only see what they can immediately put in their greedy little hands, and that is exactly what the world leaders count on.

I think this sentence is the best thing said on this topic. Things happen when you do something as simple as the "TA DA!" and pull back the curtain reveal on something as complicated as world politics. The big picture I laid out in my posts may not be exactly what happens, but something will certainly happen, and it is a good bet that something will bad for all concerned. The big picture is important and very few people want to look at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn (Post 707211)
Why have transparency of Government anyway? its not like people are smart enough to make use of the information. it'd probably just cause fake internet scandal after fake internet scandal and people would get all worked up about shit that doesn't really matter like, "DID YOU HEAR THE GOVERNMENT KILLED ALL THE PUPPIES IN EGYPT."

There's a joke here wrapped around a very lucid point. Most people would look at the things in these reports and scream for justice without thinking what happens after the punishment. That's why I feel classified information should remain so in many cases, not all cases, but in many cases. Most people couldn't handle transparent government

Zhukov Dec 11th, 2010 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 707240)

But how can you say Assange starting all this is not an international crime while another kind of espionage is? Assange is the spearhead for this mess, and what he did is orchestrate an internet espionage ring. This isn't journalism, if he really wanted this info to be exposed because of an altruistic belief, then by all means he should have sent it to a media outlet. The fact that he made his own site supports my belief that he is a fame hog. I know you think that the results of this fame (his life being under constant threat) disproves my theory, but I disagree with that. People all the time get something they wished for without any foreknowledge of the consequences, only to realize that what they wished for was more hassle than they believed possible. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it is a proverb for a reason.

How is starting a website that allows whistle-blowers a safe way to get their information out to the public considered 'espionage'? Firstly, it's not spies that are stealing the classified documents, it's members of the government or military that are speaking out and have access to any documents anyway. Second, it's not wikileaks that is doing this, as has been said before.

Assange hasn't created an international online spy ring to steal military secrets. All wikileaks is is an avenue for whistle-blowers to get their information out there. You have to understand that before you can judge it.

Now, the reason why the leaked information hasn't been put through the standard media avenues is probably because they can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust most news stations or papers, so I can understand if someone would rather go through a website that has been created for that purpose, and isn't run by people with vested interests in government for whatever reasons.

The argument that he has created the website with the intention to become famous is just ridiculous. It has been running for years, and he's only in the papers recently. Nobody has heard of anyone else that runs wikileaks; are they in it for fame too?

Quote:

These people you listed take their orders from our elected officials, and it is rare for a member of the military to go maverick (though it can happen, hence why we have Court Martials). Those elected offficials rarely last more than a term these days because as a country we have been swinging back and fourth politically every 4 years for the past decade.
I honestly can't fathom why you think that after a term of 4 years a person is immune to criticism, or perhaps even a garbled version of justice.


Quote:

These things were public though. These things were the counterargument of people who were supporting the war when the WMDs were not there. This is exactly what I mean when i said look at what could happen. We had multiple 'reasons for justice' to go into Iraq, but as it turns out that was a huge mistake.
So you ARE saying that gassing Kurds and torturing civilians should have been kept classified? Best that nobody found out?

Quote:

Because I am talking results. It takes wisdom to see that everything has a result and takes even more wisdom to exercise caution when you act. Revealing everything would bring about a shit storm of epic proportions, I don't think you realize just how bad it would be, and there would be a world wide ripple effect as a result of sudden worldwide government transparency.
Ok, results. You are worried that so many horrible things will be uncovered by wikileaks about the US government that the rest of the world will have to do something. You're worried that that 'something' would hinder your life or many other US citizens lives. I don't want to have to say it, but fuck - what if nobody found out about the holocaust? Best to leave that sort of thing under wraps, because it being made public knowledge would probably cause repercussions on normal German citizens. Yeah, it's the holocaust, I used it as an example, sue me. But this is your argument; keep things secret, possibly horrible things (especially the horrible things), because if people found out there would be trouble. If this is your argument then I think I am done here.

Pentegarn Dec 11th, 2010 10:21 AM

You are young Zhukov, one day when you get older, you will understand the concept of the greater good, as opposed to the idealistic and unrealistic view you take on the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707242)
How is starting a website that allows whistle-blowers a safe way to get their information out to the public considered 'espionage'? Firstly, it's not spies that are stealing the classified documents, it's members of the government or military that are speaking out and have access to any documents anyway. Second, it's not wikileaks that is doing this, as has been said before.

Firstly, you don't have to be an official spy and put that down on your w2 to commit espionage. If you are guilty of it you are guilty of it. trying to paint what they are doing as something else doesn't change what it is. Mob bosses don't commit most of the murders that are done on their behalf, but they are still responsible for said murders. The same is true here.

Which brings me to this; these things on Wikileaks, they aren't wikileaks' responsibility? Had wikileaks never been invented these things would never have been posted. Actions have consequence, as I have repeatedly said. You want these whistle blowees to take responsibility for what they wrought, yet you dismiss wikileaks' hand in the issues that will come as a result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707242)
Assange hasn't created an international online spy ring to steal military secrets. All wikileaks is is an avenue for whistle-blowers to get their information out there. You have to understand that before you can judge it.

An accessory is an accessory, hemming and hawing about it changes nothing, trying to put a positive spin on it does not undo the damage it will cause, you have to realize this before you can defend it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707242)
Now, the reason why the leaked information hasn't been put through the standard media avenues is probably because they can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust most news stations or papers, so I can understand if someone would rather go through a website that has been created for that purpose, and isn't run by people with vested interests in government for whatever reasons.

The media has issues, but individuals are the solution. Be a journalist of integrity and report the things properly without bias. But this has to be tempered with wisdom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707242)
The argument that he has created the website with the intention to become famous is just ridiculous. It has been running for years, and he's only in the papers recently. Nobody has heard of anyone else that runs wikileaks; are they in it for fame too?

His actions support my view. Perhaps these others are just smart enough to know anonymity is their only protection from what is to come. In other words, maybe only Assange was moronic enough to stick his head up and have his look at me moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707242)
I honestly can't fathom why you think that after a term of 4 years a person is immune to criticism, or perhaps even a garbled version of justice.

I honestly can't fathom how you took that out of what I said. I said you can't punish current leaders for the actions of past leaders, it is a ridiculous concept. Why not make Jeffery Dahmer's relatives go to jail since he died and before serving his sentence while you are at it? What I actually said is there would not likely be anything done about it. There are a myriad of reasons for this. At best you would get a trial where high priced lawyers would get the people off on a technicality. The UN is smart enough (I think) to know if they try to push some sort of world trial on the US that the US (the primary financial contributor and most charitable of the UN nations by the way) would simply withdraw from the UN.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707242)
So you ARE saying that gassing Kurds and torturing civilians should have been kept classified? Best that nobody found out?

Not at all, I said look at the result. If that is what you took from doing so then the question I think should be is that what YOU are saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707242)
Ok, results. You are worried that so many horrible things will be uncovered by wikileaks about the US government that the rest of the world will have to do something. You're worried that that 'something' would hinder your life or many other US citizens lives. I don't want to have to say it, but fuck - what if nobody found out about the holocaust? Best to leave that sort of thing under wraps, because it being made public knowledge would probably cause repercussions on normal German citizens. Yeah, it's the holocaust, I used it as an example, sue me. But this is your argument; keep things secret, possibly horrible things (especially the horrible things), because if people found out there would be trouble. If this is your argument then I think I am done here.

Let me ask you this, what good does hurting the innocent for crimes committed by the guilty do?

Blasted Child Dec 11th, 2010 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 707250)
You are young Zhukov, one day when you get older, you will understand the concept of the greater good, as opposed to the idealistic and unrealistic view you take on the world.

I don't think it's naive to ask for transparency. What kind of bitter and jaded world-view does one nurture to believe transparency is not worth fighting for?

I think it's more idealistic to believe that all politicians are always doing their best to serve the people, and that they're best left alone without any scrutiny.
I think it's extremely naive to buy into their stories about how wikileaks is actually hurting innocent people, instead of focusing on how world leaders are gambling with thousands of lives in the most cynical way.

Surely, all sorts of media and propaganda machines will now brainstorm up heart-breaking stories about witnesses that have been exposed and dissidents on the run and whatnot, but let's look at the big picture.

Zhukov Dec 12th, 2010 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 707250)

Firstly, you don't have to be an official spy and put that down on your w2 to commit espionage. If you are guilty of it you are guilty of it. trying to paint what they are doing as something else doesn't change what it is. Mob bosses don't commit most of the murders that are done on their behalf, but they are still responsible for said murders. The same is true here.

The guy is not a spy. Wikileaks isn't a front for an international espionage group. They are not cyber hackers. You wont be able to find any evidence of this and it's so outrageous that I haven't even heard and governments accusing him/them of this. It's the last comment I am making on the subject unless you can find some evidence for him hacking and stealing.
Quote:

Which brings me to this; these things on Wikileaks, they aren't wikileaks' responsibility? Had wikileaks never been invented these things would never have been posted. Actions have consequence, as I have repeatedly said. You want these whistle blowees to take responsibility for what they wrought, yet you dismiss wikileaks' hand in the issues that will come as a result.
Saying that the information would never have been leaked had it not been for wikileaks is a bit of a stretch. The people that chose to be whistle-blowers would have most likely found another avenue, in my opinion. And, yus, I do think that wikileaks has some responsibility in the matter, they are the ones that are making it easy to leak info, and they are the ones making it easy for the public to read into. I haven't said anything along the lines that whistle blowers need to take responsibility for the consequences or anything along those lines whatsoever.


Quote:

An accessory is an accessory, hemming and hawing about it changes nothing, trying to put a positive spin on it does not undo the damage it will cause, you have to realize this before you can defend it.
An accessory to spies? You say that Julian Assange is a spy, that wikileaks is an espionage ring, and then on the other hand you say that is assisting spies. There hasn't, as far as I am aware, been any evidence uncovered to suggest that any of the leaked information that has been posted on wikileaks, has been obtained by stealing it. If you can't find some evidence to back up the claim for spying, then leave it alone.

Quote:

The media has issues, but individuals are the solution. Be a journalist of integrity and report the things properly without bias. But this has to be tempered with wisdom
Well that's a whole different kettle of fish, and if you want to start a thread about the media then go for it. I will say, however, that there is no way that individual journalists can stay unbiased, since even if they did their news company wouldn't run their stories or would have them fired. Still, not on topic.

Quote:

His actions support my view. Perhaps these others are just smart enough to know anonymity is their only protection from what is to come. In other words, maybe only Assange was moronic enough to stick his head up and have his look at me moment.
I really think you are grasping at straws here. IS he a spy or is he just trying to get famous? Is it both? It's ridiculous any way you look at it. How do his actions support your view that he is just in this to get famous? Famous for WHAT END? He's not making a billion dollars off of this, he's not appearing on talk shows. It's ridiculous.

Quote:


I honestly can't fathom how you took that out of what I said. I said you can't punish current leaders for the actions of past leaders, it is a ridiculous concept. Why not make Jeffery Dahmer's relatives go to jail since he died and before serving his sentence while you are at it? What I actually said is there would not likely be anything done about it. There are a myriad of reasons for this. At best you would get a trial where high priced lawyers would get the people off on a technicality. The UN is smart enough (I think) to know if they try to push some sort of world trial on the US that the US (the primary financial contributor and most charitable of the UN nations by the way) would simply withdraw from the UN.
You said that there is no point bringing crimes of a government to light, because they will be out of office in at least 8 to 4 years anyway. Who is saying that present leaders need to be punished for past leaders though?!! As far as no legal action being taken against 'present or past leaders' ... is that the point? To get US military courts to bring tortures to justice? No. To get big banks to pay back all the tax they dodged? No. It's to show people how their world and their society runs, behind their backs. You can't seriously believe that just because nobody is going to arrest high ranking military personnel, that any crime they commit should just stay hidden. That's insane.



Quote:

Not at all, I said look at the result. If that is what you took from doing so then the question I think should be is that what YOU are saying?
"If that is what you took from doing so then the question I think should be is that what YOU are saying?"

I can't understand what you just said :\

You DO think that the torture of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government should have been made public, but the torture of Iraqi's by the US government has to stay secret. Right. Please explain to me how the consequences of A outweigh the consequences of B.

Quote:

Let me ask you this, what good does hurting the innocent for crimes committed by the guilty do?
Soo.... it WAS a bad thing for the holocaust to come to light? I'm not saying ANYTHING about punishing innocent people, you seem to think it's the logical conclusion to uncovering war crimes or environmental and economic crime. It's not. Has it been in the past? It has, but nobody is suggesting it now, are they? No.

Here are some leaked documents, and I want you to tell me if it would be better if they were all just left alone and kept classified.

Bank Julius Baer: Grand Larceny via Grand Cayman - How the largest private Swiss bank avoids paying tax to the Swiss government

The looting of Kenya under President Moi - $3,000,000,000 presidential corruption exposed; swung the Dec 2007 Kenyan election

The Monju nuclear reactor leak - Three suppressed videos from Japan's fast breeder reactor Monju revealing the true extent of the 1995 sodium coolant disaster

Inside Somalia and the Union of Islamic Courts - Vital strategy documents in the Somali war and a play for Chinese support

CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 Mar 2010 - This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan.

The Independent: Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city, 17 Sep 2009 - Publication of an article originally published in UK newspaper The Independent, but censored from the Independent's website.

Secret gag on UK Times preventing publication of Minton report into toxic waste dumping, 16 Sep 2009

How German intelligence infiltrated Focus magazine - Illegal spying on German journalists

Stasi still in charge of Stasi files - Suppressed 2007 investigation into infiltration of former Stasi into the Stasi files commission

Changes in Guantanamo Bay SOP manual (2003-2004) - Guantanamo Bay's main operations manuals

Fallujah jail challenges US - Classified U.S. report into appalling prison conditions in Fallujah

Dili investigator called to Canberra as evidence of execution mounts - the Feb 2008 killing of East Timor rebel leader Reinado

Como entrenar a escuadrones de la muerte y aplastar revoluciones de El Salvador a Iraq - The U.S. Special Forces manual on how to prop up unpopular government with paramilitaries

Claims of molestation resurface for US judo official

Report on Shriners raises question of wrongdoing - corruption exposed at 22 U.S. and Canadian children's hospitals.

Church of Scientology's 'Operating Thetan' documents leaked online - Scientology's secret, and highly litigated bibles

Internet Censorship in Thailand - The secret internet censorship lists of Thailand's military junta

Eutelsat suppresses independent Chinese-language TV station NTDTV to satisfy Beijing - French sat provider Eutelsat covertly removed an anti-communist TV channel to satisfy Beijing

Whistleblower exposes insider trading program at JP Morgan - Legal insider trading in three easy steps, brought to you by JP Morgan and the SEC


http://www.wikileaks.ch/about.html


In summing up you are basically saying that Julian Assange is a spy who is just out for fame, rather than any altruistic reasons, and that any crime committed by the worlds governing bodies should stay hidden, especially the US ones, because nobody is going to bring them to justice, and if they did then world stability would fail.

If it's not what you are saying, then please sum up in a sentence or to what it IS you are saying.

kahljorn Dec 12th, 2010 06:09 AM

Doesn't the government have a right to lie to people?

Is there something in the constitution that says that the government cant lie to people?

Zhukov Dec 12th, 2010 06:22 AM

Not that I am aware of. If a government has a right to lie, then I guess a people have a right to find out if they are lying. It's not in the constitution that people don't have a right to find out, is it?

kahljorn Dec 12th, 2010 06:24 AM

People really aren't trying to figure anything out though, its like one or two people on the internet

Pentegarn Dec 12th, 2010 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707318)
Soo.... it WAS a bad thing for the holocaust to come to light?

See this sort of thing it an ad hominem argument. But if you want to compare the holocaust (6 million lives lost) to the stuff on wikileaks lets do so, but let's put it in proper perspective.

How many lives were lost because of every event reported on wikileaks combined? Was it half the lives in the holocaust? Was it 10% of the lives? Hell I will go as far as to wager it wasn't even 1% of the lives lost. Playing the holocaust card is both childish and smacks of desperation. I was nice enough to ignore it once but once you accuse me twice of saying I think we should have hidden the holocaust in a transparent effort to make your much lesser view about wikileaks seem like it is on par with the holocaust, I am left with no choice but to call you out for it.

You also seem to counter argue that fame without purpose cannot possibly be motivation. Tell that to Michael Lohan, every internet sensation on youtube, or John Goslin. None of these people exactly got rich off of their fame, yet they still are fame hogs. Just because you don't get rich off of something does not mean you do not get famous, and for some people fame in and of itself is a motivation. Maybe he is arrogant, maybe his life's purpose is to cement his name in the history books. All I know is a purely unselfishly motivated person would have simply funneled the information to a media outlet that has integrity. If you look hard enough you can still find an example of journalists who just report the news (Meet the Press is an example of this). If I, an average guy from the middle of the US can find one media outlet that I deem trustworthy, he could have too. He chose, that's right chose, not to take that route and went instead for this whistle blower site. All these examples you listed, Watergate, the Holocaust, etc, have all been exposed by the media. In fact let's look at Watergate for a moment. Notice how you could not for years tell me the real name of Deep Throat. The reason for this is they were altruistic, and not a fame seeker, they wanted a crime reported and went about it the exact way one should go to do so to see justice. There was no look at me moment, there was no whistle blower site, there was nothing but someone quietly reporting a wrong, with no expectation of a reward other then maintaining their anonymity. There's a very sharp contrast between Deep Throat and Assange, one that cannot be denied.

Note: I am not convinced Felt (the man who years later claimed to be Deep Throat) is actually telling the truth about him being Deep Throat, but that is another discussion entirely

Pentegarn Dec 12th, 2010 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707318)
Assange hasn't created an international online spy ring to steal military secrets. All wikileaks is is an avenue for whistle-blowers to get their information out there. You have to understand that before you can judge it.

And yet, you then pointed this out

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707318)
CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 Mar 2010 - This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan.

Looks like that is a military secret to me, it is classified, it is designed to help get support from other countries, and yet now, thanks to some espionage (exposing classified documents about strategies can be called nothing else you see) this particular strategy has been compromised. Why did the whistle need to be blown on this? To show the US uses PR to gain support from other countries? Unless you live under a rock you should know every country does this. Now that this is out there the people have gained nothing, yet the US just lost face in a PR campaign they felt was necessary.

Zhukov Dec 12th, 2010 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 707322)
See this sort of thing it an ad hominem argument. But if you want to compare the holocaust (6 million lives lost) to the stuff on wikileaks lets do so, but let's put it in proper perspective.

No, It's not an ad hominen argument. It's a comparison. If I had used the Srebrenica massacre instead would that have been better? I'll pose that then, would it have been better if nobody found out about the Srebrenica massacre?

Pent, I don't actually think you understand what wikileaks is doing. Nor do I think you understand what information has been leaked to it. The comparison to the holocaust was an extreme example of things that governments do, and then cover them up and keep the information classified. I wasn't saying that anything the US has done in Iraq, Sth America, Afghanistan, the USA, or wherever is on par with the holocaust. You say that a government has a right to keep things classified if it deems them worthy, well, they thought the mass execution of Jews was something that should be classified, and despite everything when the war was over most Germans didn't know about the death camps. They were kept classified. That is the only comparison that I am making with it.

Again, who decides what is kept classified and what isn't? The government? Slightly biased I would say, since they are most likely to cover up their mistakes, crimes, embarrassments and such.

Also, dude, you can't just keep calling me young, childish impressionable, idealistic or whatever when you yourself haven't looked into it. A few posts ago you were saying that Assange was personally hacking into US mainframes or whatever and stealing secret military plans, so there really isn't any reason to bust out the insults.



Quote:

You also seem to counter argue that fame without purpose cannot possibly be motivation. Tell that to Michael Lohan, every internet sensation on youtube, or John Goslin. None of these people exactly got rich off of their fame, yet they still are fame hogs. Just because you don't get rich off of something does not mean you do not get famous, and for some people fame in and of itself is a motivation. Maybe he is arrogant, maybe his life's purpose is to cement his name in the history books. All I know is a purely unselfishly motivated person would have simply funneled the information to a media outlet that has integrity. If you look hard enough you can still find an example of journalists who just report the news (Meet the Press is an example of this). If I, an average guy from the middle of the US can find one media outlet that I deem trustworthy, he.......
Wait, wait, wait.


Who is "he"?


Quote:

.....could have too. He chose, that's right chose, not to take that route and went instead for this whistle blower site. All these examples you listed, Watergate, the Holocaust, etc, have all been exposed by the media. In fact let's look at Watergate for a moment. Notice how you could not for years tell me the real name of Deep Throat. The reason for this is they were altruistic, and not a fame seeker, they wanted a crime reported and went about it the exact way one should go to do so to see justice. There was no look at me moment, there was no whistle blower site, there was nothing but someone quietly reporting a wrong, with no expectation of a reward other then maintaining their anonymity.
Assange is not a whistle-blower so he doesn't have to remain anonymous. He is the public face of a web site that has been in the news a lot recently. What does his so called fame chasing actions have anything to do with the validity of a transparent government? You also haven't said whether you think the Watergate scandal should have been made public either. If yes, why?

Quote:

There's a very sharp contrast between Deep Throat and Assange, one that cannot be denied.
Right, the fact that Deep Throat was a whistle-blower, and Assange is the head of a media outlet. What makes it; a not for profit website, untrustworthy in your opinion, and the highly profit driven news companies trustworthy I don't know. Wikileaks IS media. Are you now saying that it's OK for criminal activity to be brought out to the public so long as it's in a newspaper first?


Quote:

Looks like that is a military secret to me, it is classified, it is designed to help get support from other countries, and yet now, thanks to some espionage (exposing classified documents about strategies can be called nothing else you see) this particular strategy has been compromised. Why did the whistle need to be blown on this? To show the US uses PR to gain support from other countries? Unless you live under a rock you should know every country does this. Now that this is out there the people have gained nothing, yet the US just lost face in a PR campaign they felt was necessary.
Assange didn't commit espionage to obtain the information. It was given to wikileaks by most likely a member of the US military. It's not espionage, nor is 'exposing classified documents' considered espionage. The fact that such classified information is leaked through this particular website is NOT proof that said website used espionage to obtain it. That's not proof that Assange is a spy, a head of a spy ring, a hacker, or assisting or being an accessory to spies.

The US is not calling him a spy that is stealing military secrets, since if they did so they would have to actually prove it. Why are you so keen to call him a spy and a hacker?

In fact THIS is ad hominem. We can't trust wikileaks because Julian Assange is a spy.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ZHUKOV
You DO think that the torture of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government should have been made public, but the torture of Iraqi's by the US government has to stay secret. Right. Please explain to me how the consequences of A outweigh the consequences of B.


kahljorn Dec 12th, 2010 10:10 PM

Zhukov, you already lost this argument because you support a guy named Asshinge.

Pentegarn Dec 13th, 2010 07:02 AM

Zhukov, you either are willfully ignorant of the fact that fully transparent governments are a bad idea and totally destructive to the social and economic climate, or you simply don't care about consequences, either way, it is clear there is no getting through to you.

Blasted Child Dec 13th, 2010 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 707390)
Zhukov, you are willfully ignorant of the fact that fully transparent governments are a bad idea and totally destructive to the social and economic climate

Oh man...

Blasted Child Dec 13th, 2010 08:20 AM

When delivering such fine pearls of wisdom, Pentegarn, you need a fitting emoticon:
:xmas2

Zhukov Dec 13th, 2010 09:47 AM

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I would like so sum up with the following:

Julian Assange is, at the time of writing and contrary to any unknown evidence, not a spy, nor is he nor Wikileaks associated with spies or any forms of espionage. Rather, he is the public face of a media outlet designed to allow whistle-blowers to safely and anonymously expose their government's behaviour.

What is deemed classified by most governments is more often than not considered such to hide criminal behaviour in various forms, rather than because of military secrets etc pertaining to the safety of it's civilians.

Government transparency in the near future, while not completely responsible for the destruction of the current social and economic climate, is certainly a step in the right direction for a more civil and just society and a fairer economic climate. A climate where the type of 'classified' torture, espionage, lying, war crimes, tax evasion, environmental destruction and other such actions aren't hidden and aren't accepted.

kahljorn Dec 13th, 2010 11:04 AM

if he's not a spy t hen why does he call it wikileaks?

leaks are to spies what leeks are to leek farmers.

Fathom Zero Dec 13th, 2010 11:37 AM

Spies don't leak secrets, they give them to their employers whom keep them secret.

kahljorn Dec 13th, 2010 11:47 AM

I never said that spies leak secrets. That's like saying plumbers leak water!

Colonel Flagg Dec 13th, 2010 11:56 AM

I've been reading this exchange with great interest.

At the onset, I was deeply suspicious of Mr. Assange and his motives regarding the leaking of "pseudo-sensitive" information that was merely embarrassing to the US Department of State. Then after reading Zhukov and Pentegarn head to head I found myself drawn to the middle ground. Maybe we need a site like this to keep our governments honest with those they are charged with governing.

Then this shows up. What better way to sabotage a cause for transparency than to wage a cyberwar. Someone, somewhere has a really bad idea of what constitutes grass-roots support.

Fathom Zero Dec 13th, 2010 12:23 PM

Except for the fact that it's fucking 4-Chan and their band of retarded, misguided Robin Hoods. They don't have anything to do with the official Wiki-leaks. I'm assuming they're just having a hard time staying afloat at the moment. O'course, they'll probably just buddy-up with Pirate Bay or do what they're doing.

Tadao Dec 13th, 2010 02:25 PM

These are the end results of not thinking something through and just slipping bad news to the world every 12 hours. But hey! Who gives a shit huh? As long as I know the world is fucked up! I mean I already new that and have been saying it forever and was pro real change, but no! This is a much better idea! Let's just cram hate down the worlds throat and only give them enough breathing room for a panic attack.

BRILLIANT!

Tadao Dec 13th, 2010 02:25 PM

BTW, I compare him to Fox News.

Pentegarn Dec 13th, 2010 08:56 PM

I still can't believe that in the age of information anyone can believe total government transparency is either realistic or reasonable.

I however am not a bit surprised Zhukov thinks the destruction of the social and economic society is a good thing. I find it funny that communists like to use the word 'fair' as a club to bully the world into their way of thinking, when they have to treat a large number of people quite unfairly to reach their goals. So of course something like wikileaks would be a good thing to them, as they can whine ad nausea about all 'unfair things' posted there. Be it a non communist government they want to see fall, or a corporation that is not contributing to the proletariat.

Here's a news flash for the communists of the world, quit bitching about fair and unfair because guess what, life is not fair. Nature itself doesn't give a damn about fairness. Fairness as a concept was invented by weaker humans to manipulate stronger humans. Do you think a lion gives a damn about fairness when it is devouring a gazelle? Nope, and that is because the natural order of things is the strong flourish and the weak perish. Fairness has no place in the natural order because you dilute the gene pool by forcing the weak to get their fair share at the expense of the strong.

So my conclusion is wikileaks is beloved by communists and euro trash, but those with the wisdom to understand the bigger picture see it for the crapstorm it really is

MLE Dec 13th, 2010 09:51 PM

You would be perfect for a CEO of a company.

Blasted Child Dec 14th, 2010 04:38 AM

Ok, for a minute there I thought Pentegarn was serious

Zhukov Dec 14th, 2010 05:17 AM

Nature itself is not serious.

Pentegarn Dec 14th, 2010 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blasted Child (Post 707554)
Ok, for a minute there I thought Pentegarn was serious

Whatever you feel you need to say to validate your naive view of the world :lol

Jaimas Dec 14th, 2010 11:26 AM

Ponder this for a moment:

Transparency and openness, whilst several are claiming are unfeasible and unrealistic, are, to put it simply, the only real tool people have to protect themselves from those who would exploit them. Does Wikileaks harm the US's diplomatic relationships? Absolutely. But that's the price one pays for repeatedly and habitually manipulating people based on pure and utter falsehoods. It's the biggest bit of good to emerge from this entire affair - that everything's out in the open, and that those responsible will be less likely to attempt to exploit people if the knowledge that someone willing to pull back the proverbial curtain may be lying in wait to expose it.

...Just putting it out there.

kahljorn Dec 14th, 2010 11:43 AM

WHAT IF WHEN THE LUSITANA SUNK FALSEFLAGOPCONSPIRACYFUCKTALK; OR THAT (IT WAS REVEALED THAT) WE KNEW ABOUT PEARL HARBOR AND ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN ETC. WHAT IF THE TRANSPARENCY WOULDVE REVEALED IT WAS AN AMERICAN SCAM THEN WE NEVER WOULDVE STOPPED HITLER AND RIGHT NOW WE"D BE LIVING IN HITLER BIZZARO WORLD

Jaimas Dec 14th, 2010 11:55 AM

I love you, kahljorn. :lol

EDIT:
I am almost entirely sure that was the plot of a comic book in the silver age. I need to consult the archives on this.

kahljorn Dec 14th, 2010 11:57 AM

JUST POINTING OUT THE FACTS

Dimnos Dec 14th, 2010 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bill of Rights
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html


Quote:

Originally Posted by America.gov on Freedom of the Press
Although a cherished right of the people, freedom of the press is different from other liberties of the people in that it is both individual and institutional. It applies not just to a single person's right to publish ideas, but also to the right of print and broadcast media to express political views and to cover and publish news. A free press is, therefore, one of the foundations of a democratic society, and as Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." Indeed, as society has grown increasingly complex, people rely more and more on newspapers, radio, and television to keep abreast with world news, opinion, and political ideas. One sign of the importance of a free press is that when antidemocratic forces take over a country, their first act is often to muzzle the press.


http://www.america.gov/st/democracyh...0.6333842.html


Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.


http://www.america.gov/st/democracyh...0.6333842.html


Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
Press ~ 7. a: the gathering and publishing or broadcasting of news


I fail to see how Wikileaks isnt a member of "The Press" and not protected as such. On top of that some people were talking about why he didnt pass it on to other news outlets as if doing that would make the release of this info "less wrong" or perhaps "more right". Fact is he did give the info to other news outlets. The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel all received this info and published it just as the Wikileaks website did. Why are none of these outlets not being called terrorists? Because they are only passing on information given to them from another source? Wait... Thats exactly what Wikileaks did. :dunce

Blasted Child Dec 14th, 2010 06:57 PM

10 bucks says Pentegarn is gonna retort using the word "naive"

MLE Dec 14th, 2010 08:49 PM

I was going to bet on "too young to understand" again. Because that applies to Thomas Jefferson/other founding fathers.

Pentegarn Dec 14th, 2010 09:14 PM

Actually, I am going to just say I am tried of warning you about what total transparency will do. If you can't, or you refuse to see the big picture, if 'social justice' is more important to you than life, so be it. The only way to fix the sort of destructive mentality that I am seeing is to simply quit trying to stop it, quit trying to reason with those who refuse to see. Instead, I will let it happen

So go on, bang the drum, get your victory against the big bad governments of the world. Millions will suffer, but you'll satisfy your indignation at all the injustice of the world so who cares about those people right?

But in the end, know what will happen?

Something worse will take its place. it won't just be America that falls though, who will buy the world products if America falls?

Enjoy the destroyed world you are screaming for, but understand this, every thing bad that happens as a result will be greeted with a big fat I told you so, all of it. Every single event. So sit in your little inclusive thinktanks, whine about fairness, act like your ideals that history has repeatedly proven cannot be will work this time when it has yet to, and when you find out how unfair 'total fairness' actually turns out to be, I will at least be able to take solace in the fact that you too will suffer from your own hubris.

Once that happens, maybe those of you who refuse to care about the consequences will have learned something, the ones left alive after the world is embroiled in war, famine, and death anyway

Zhukov Dec 14th, 2010 09:39 PM


The Leader Dec 14th, 2010 10:24 PM

Look at them gams.

Zhukov Dec 15th, 2010 11:04 AM

Date; unknown. The year 2012, possibly April.

I dedicate it all to you, the future. These are the writings of the past.

We never could have known just how wrong we were, and when all the bombs and ash had fallen, all we knew was that we would never get the chance to be that wrong ever again. And through all the pain, suffering and hatred that would soon follow, I never stopped longing to be naive once more.

I write this from inside an abandoned library, the words and pages long gone, mostly, and even the insects that for a while fed off the rotting hardcovers seem to have moved to greener, or possibly less grey, pastures. But it still houses me, and maybe a half dozen or so other poor unfortunates, more lumps of living tissue than people, but still alive. Nobody calls for transparency of government nowadays, the few people left to cry into the night usually leave only wails and screams of the dead, echoing the passion we once had for our ideals and other things like ideals. The only shadow of a government would be the violent gangs that roam the nights (and the days lately) looking for fuel and women - we don't need internet hackers to tell us their intentions.

It is of great irony (possibly irony? I forgot if it is or not) that I write my last testament on the crumpled and worn pages of The Communist Manifesto, in the bit at the back where they have a few blank pages left over for notes or whatever. I used to hold this book dear to me, and actually understood whole tracts of it to such an extent that I could at least convince other people on the internet that I knew what I was talking about. How would Marx and Engels view the complete and utter destruction of our economic and social orders? Destruction would probably be too much for them to contemplate, but no... Oh, the folly of youth!

We only wanted freedom of speech, and freedom of press. We only wanted our governments to answer to the people, rather than to themselves, and we only wanted justice, fairness and probably liberty too if we had thought of it at the time. As forceful as we demanded those things, reality would show us the error of our ways tenfold.

Oh how we laughed as scandal upon scandal rocked the USA. It's once proud and bright flag was tarnished with every nature of stains and excrement. It was weighed down so heavily in shit that the whole structure just came crashing down; and we laughed. That was all we wanted! We hated America! But nobody for a second considered who would buy the world products if America falls?

So China continued to produce Toy Story 3 collector cups, plastic dicks for Hen's Nights, and designer clothing. Either not noticing that their market was now a large gaping hole, or not caring, scared that their own economy would collapse, and bring their government down too. I'm sick of writing now but somewhere in here WWIII starts, and the point is that there are worse horrors BECAUSE of government transparency, far worse than anything imaginable.

The one beautiful thing is that I can see the stars better than I ever did before the fall. So beautiful. So cold now... so tired...

Colonel Flagg Dec 15th, 2010 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 707659)

The seventeenth girl from the bottom in the fourth row does not have her leg lifted at the same height as the others. She needs "re-education".

Colonel Flagg Dec 15th, 2010 12:00 PM

This argument reminds me of a relatively famous quotation from none other than our former president George "Dubya" Bush -

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

The mother of all oxymorons.

EDIT - oddly enough he was talking about what people write about on the internet.

Tadao Dec 15th, 2010 03:23 PM

I want the names of the people leaking the information. It's my right as a human being that these names are not to be kept secret from me.

executioneer Dec 15th, 2010 03:53 PM

well you should start a website called wikileaksleaks and maybe someone in the wikileaks organization will get disgruntled and leak that information to you

elx Dec 15th, 2010 07:58 PM

dearest willie,

are we supposed to wash the inside of a banana?

love,
elx

edit: n/m wrong thread. here, have an ironic quote i found earlier from president obama instead (!):
Quote:

I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. The Internet is the most open network in history. We have to keep it that way. I will prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet.
from here

Fathom Zero Dec 15th, 2010 08:01 PM

woo secrets

kahljorn Dec 16th, 2010 02:05 AM

Quote:

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

The mother of all oxymorons.
So is freedom being limitless :O


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.