You really do jump to some weird conclusions.
If it matters, and I don't see why it should, I don't think too much of Sarah Palin (if that was intended as a shot at me or others who differ with you). I have no idea if she's ever said a word on the subject of WikiLeaks, and I wouldn't listen if she did.
And no one suggested anything about it being "best all the information stays secret".
The only thing I am suggesting is some level of journalistic ethics.
Good grief.
This is an interesting article that is sympathetic to Assange.
Or it at least dispels some of the "facts" that I have heard regularly repeated.
Much like I stated before..
Why is the U.S. crying fowl on this when we, as private citizens who have done nothing criminal, are spied on everyday. Our secrets are out there for government agencies to search at will. We, the citizen's of the country, have no privacy. Cell phone calls are routinely recorded. This was illegal in Nixon's time. Whatever. No one cares and the government continues to spy on us. Law abiding citizens.
Now, that the U.S. has it's dirty laundry out it's a full on monetary war against Wikileaks. Monetary war as described by shutting down accounts without a trial or jury. Last I checked Wikileaks was punished without due process by Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and Amazon. The fact that these 4 organizations who would normally slit each other's throat for 1% of profit worked in tandem against Wikileaks. Seems suspect at best. Also the point of not shutting down other harmful organizations that benefit from their transactions seems suspect as well. Wikileaks was definitely targetted while others are not.
The supposed "rape" charges. Please. We all know that's a witch hunt to get Assange into the U.S. or a black ops prison under NSA control. Another interesting link to info on Assange's potential accuser. She wrote a blog entry on 7 ways to get revenge legally. Sounds to me like you have someone who is legally adept and could be a star unshakable witness.
If the U.S. would respect privacy laws for it's own citizen's I would feel differently. It's for our own good of course, or so they tell us. As of now I think this is a witch hunt to get Assange. All with an extremely hypocritical stance on privacy and secrecy.
Let's also consider that until Wikileaks acquired this info, much like the NY Times or Washington Post, the data was available to close to 2 million individuals. Secret? I think that stretches the bounds of secret. To also say that Wikileaks had a hand in stealing the info is currently unprovable. If it was the U.S. would've said as much to add legitimacy to it's claim on Assange.
The last thing, it won't work. Executing Assange will not stop Wikileaks. Imprisoning him for life won't stop Wikileaks. He will become a martyr for the internet generation. You can't stop the website. The gov't tried shutting it down weeks ago and now it's hosted on 500+ other web hosts across the world. The U.S. should just suck it up and move on. Government will be changed by the internet. No secrets. Not anymore.
SVreX wrote: You really do jump to some weird conclusions. If it matters, and I don't see why it should, I don't think too much of Sarah Palin (if that was intended as a shot at me or others who differ with you). I have no idea if she's ever said a word on the subject of WikiLeaks, and I wouldn't listen if she did. And no one suggested anything about it being "best all the information stays secret". The only thing I am suggesting is some level of journalistic ethics. Good grief.
no personal direction towards you. Do not take it as such. Sorry if you believed so.
Thanks for posting the Salon article..
He'res a great take from it..
About Feinstein's op-ed In Feinstein's WSJ op-ed, she claims "That he is breaking the law and must be stopped from doing more harm is clear. I also believe a prosecution would be successful," citing a Congressional Research Service report which wrote that "there is ample statutory authority" for such a prosecution. But she very badly cherry-picked the report, which goes on to say: ...we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship. To the extent that the investigation implicates any foreign nationals whose conduct occurred entirely overseas, any resulting prosecution may carry foreign policy implications related to the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Essentially, CRS found that a plausible reading of the Espionage Act, by itself, might find some grounds to charge Assange -- but that precedent, the Constitution, and jurisdictional issues all weigh against a successful prosecution. Feinstein was grossly dishonest in eliding this.
I voted for Obama, because he promised to get rid of crap like this... He has failed in my opinion to make government more open. To be honest, He has failed to really set a direction for his presidency and has let the right wing define it for him. too bad. Hopefully he wakes up soon. Where is DR Hess to Gloat? Ohh wait.. His boy lil'Mac would have been worse..
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/how-to-think-about-wikileaks/67689/
SVreX wrote: The only thing I am suggesting is some level of journalistic ethics. Good grief.
Which, as far as I am aware, they are exercising. Redacting names, locations, general information that COULD actually cause people to be hurt. And they have only released a MINUSCULE amount of the documents they have.
First off. I want to apologize for the tone of my original posting. After rereading it, that post sounds a bit shrill on my part. Apologies to the community.
Big ego wrote: I voted for Obama, because he promised to get rid of crap like this... He has failed in my opinion to make government more open. To be honest, He has failed to really set a direction for his presidency and has let the right wing define it for him.
I'm so there with you. I thought that Obama would make some sort of move toward reinstating privacy and civil rights in general. I was wrong. 
HiTempguy wrote:SVreX wrote: The only thing I am suggesting is some level of journalistic ethics. Good grief.Which, as far as I am aware, they are exercising. Redacting names, locations, general information that COULD actually cause people to be hurt. And they have only released a MINUSCULE amount of the documents they have.
If they are unwilling to address any of the ethical journalistic questions I previously posted as virtually every other legitimate news agency in the world eventually must, then I wholeheartedly disagree.
Faceless self-serving thugs.
But here's an idea... Why don't we just try him in the media? The internet is certainly qualified to do it! Looks like that is what you'd rather do, so why not? No judge, no jury, no laws, no rules. Why don't we just all take sides and spout off our BS and our opinions, and whoever can hurl the biggest insult will win!
I'm prepared to wait for due process to run it's course. Are you?
Internet or not, I still believe in the Constitution. Do you?
Xceler8x wrote: Last I checked Wikileaks was punished without due process by Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and Amazon.
By definition, due process is a limitation on government. It is completely meaningless in the above context.
No business, individual, or other entity can offer due process to anyone. Only government can.
SVreX wrote: Internet or not, I still believe in the Constitution. Do you?
It isn't like the tooth fairy. It is a real thing.
Whether or not the government of this country is observing it in this case will be the bone of contention. It isn't quite as clear as "they have to" in a world where they use a technicality as a reason to open prisons on foreign soil to avoid the inconvenience of all that due process.
There is a lot at stake here. I know I am not looking forward to a future where all the information is controlled by the state.
With that, I can most certainly agree.
SVreX wrote: If they are unwilling to address any of the ethical journalistic questions I previously posted as virtually every other legitimate news agency in the world eventually must, then I wholeheartedly disagree.
I wouldn't answer those questions, each and everyone of them is biased, worded, and straight out meant to illicit an answer that will sound bad for wikileaks no matter what. And no other "news" agency would answer those questions either.
I don't see how you think this is A) Illegal or B) Bad. Did you not see just TWO of the articles referenced? Those are things that we'd never know about, even though they are a pretty big deal.
Why this worries me is it shows how easily (in public spotlight!) the government can come after you. How businesses will disassociate with you if the government could cause them "trouble". And then you get hit with dubious "rape" charges 
I don't believe that is what government is for, nor should it hold the power to hold information "secret" which shouldn't be "secret" but is just embarrassing.
We need more people like him, if anything. Sort of like a revolutionary leader for more transparency. Its not really possible to overthrow the gov of any developed nation nowadays is it? So the least we can do is make them as transparent as possible. I mean, they asked the US gov to go through the material they had and redact anything they thought shouldn't be released. That is one co-operative bad guy!
SVreX wrote: By definition, due process is a limitation on government. It is completely meaningless in the above context. No business, individual, or other entity can offer due process to anyone. Only government can.
Let me apologize to you directly. My tone in my last post was confrontational. Speaking in that fashion will only incite. You're a reasonable guy, there is no reason to be confrontational.
My point is that Wikileaks has already been punished by the government. I firmly believe that Visa, Mastercard, et al acted as spear carriers for the U.S. government. Wikileaks was tried, convicted, and punished via Visa/Mastercard by the U.S. government. Chances are the only people who can prove it would be Wikileaks because the U.S. and those corporations will never admit to this nor allow any documents to see the light of day to prove it.
You might not agree but does that clarify my point?
Also, I'm not saying what Assange is doing is right. I just wonder if the way it's being handled is right as well. What if brute force diplomacy is not the answer? Is the hammer the only tool America has? What if the cables were published and American diplomats said "Hey, this is what we do. We try to help our side and keep everyone from killing each other." Do you think that might defuse the situation?
HiTempguy wrote: Why this worries me is it shows how easily (in public spotlight!) the government can come after you. How businesses will disassociate with you if the government could cause them "trouble". And then you get hit with dubious "rape" charges
This is absolutely disturbing but we have lived with this for awhile. When the government can label anyone they want as a terrorist. Then, they can treat that terrorist in any way they like - say like sending them to black ops prisons overseas, indefinite detention like Quantanamo, or freezing every penny they own via Mastercard/Visa or - in the case of normal Americans - freeze their assets at a bank by declaring the funds in use for domestic terrorism. The courts will not protect you until after the fact.
HiTempguy wrote: We need more people like him, if anything. Sort of like a revolutionary leader for more transparency. Its not really possible to overthrow the gov of any developed nation nowadays is it? So the least we can do is make them as transparent as possible. I mean, they asked the US gov to go through the material they had and redact anything they thought shouldn't be released. That is one co-operative bad guy!
I was thinking about this today. We do need someone to educate us. We as citizen's are expected, and have a duty, to be educated about what we vote on. How can we vote intelligently if we don't know what the other hand of our government is doing. Even voting can be suspect...check out the fraud possible via electronic voting. This stuff is truly a rabbit hole like in Alice In Wonderland.
Also, while some of this data released is sensitive I can't help but feel that a lot of it is just petty. One diplomat calling another worthless. Another diplomat saying what everyone is thinking about Iran. Is it really so bad to have this stuff out in the open? The list of sites to be protected from terrorists...I can think of 10 sites in my city alone that should qualify for protection if you want zero problems with domestic terrorism. To say those are state secrets when divulged really is a stretch.
I also think the real threat here is that the average person will start acting like a soviet citizen. Be honest. How many of you think about what you say in public, on the phone, on email now? We all joke about how we are under surveillance. I know I feel like I am. I don't joke about bombs, terrorism, etc unless I'm with people I implicitly trust. I won't discuss such subjects in public either. It's not worth the risk. Do you guys notice the same thing?
I voted for candidate Obama's open government. Where is that? I know at least some of you are nodding your heads in agreement. The one's who aren't, I like hearing your opinions. Please bring up other viewpoints than my own.
HiTempguy wrote:SVreX wrote: The only thing I am suggesting is some level of journalistic ethics. Good grief.Which, as far as I am aware, they are exercising. Redacting names, locations, general information that COULD actually cause people to be hurt. And they have only released a MINUSCULE amount of the documents they have.
And then threatened to release the information 'thermonuclear bomb' if something happened to Assange.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/1210/Pentagon-scrambles-to-prep-for-thermonuclear-Wikileaks-release
Yeah, great people. Got the security of the world first in their minds. Uh huh.
"In a speech delivered at the beginning of his first visit to China, Obama said the free flow of information makes societies stronger and can help channel opinion to the political leaders......Obama said that people in positions of power may be uncomfortable when confronted with criticism but that it "makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don't want to hear," The Journal reported."
That was November 16th, 2009. I wonder why he isn't making the same speech now that he is one of the ones feeling uncomfortable. Just a year ago it was necessary for our President to go to China and tell them to let the internet be free, that it makes for a stronger society, but now that it our country with the black eye the talk has shifted from freedom of information to trumped up sexual assualt charges (for not wearing a condom during consentual sex for goodness sake) to talks of espionage and cyber-terrorism.
To all you conspiracy theorists: if you think it makes good sense for the US to pull strings to have Assange arrested, the upshot is if he is eventually charged with crimes under the US Espionage Act or other laws, due to the timing of his arrest that takes a back seat to the charges in Sweden. And that could drag out for years.
Consider this: The rape charges were originally brought in August. The latest leak release was announced in mid to late November. By that time, Sweden had already reinstated the original rape charges. Yeah, again it makes good sense.
I think this is more likely: Assange was already in trouble with the Swedish government and by releasing these diplomatic communications he hoped to make it all look like a big ol' conspiracy theory. (Most likely his Australian attorney thought that one up.) And y'all are playing right into his hands.
By the way, I don't see anyone here trashing the Swedes for making it the law that you must wear a condom. And y'all think the US government sticks its nose in the bedroom.
CIA sets up fake wikileaks site to see who is downloading wikileaks files...
and
Fails at the internet..
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/10/cias-honeypot-wikile.html
The conspiracy theories are looking more reliable every day.
Yeah, like boingboing is a real reliable source. Whoopee. 
My conspiracy theory looks a lot better'n yours. 
Jensenman wrote: Yeah, like boingboing is a real reliable source. Whoopee.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ej8yk/google_insight_heat_maps_for_wikileaks/c18ih3o
More info there..
Put thisinto google "whois http://wikileaks.psytek.net/"
Then understand this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whois
Wikipedia for reliable information on Wikileaks? Cracka, please.
Jensenman wrote: Wikipedia for reliable information on Wikileaks? Cracka, please.
dude.. Do you know what a whois command is?
If not most of that stuff will be lost on you....
This small bleu marble is the one i race on,please don't frckitup with all you"r random "Intelligencce" K?
Jensenman wrote: By the way, I don't see anyone here trashing the Swedes for making it the law that you must wear a condom. And y'all think the US government sticks its nose in the bedroom.
Sweden is Sweden. They pay sky high taxes, have a great welfare system, but they are not the US and we are not them. I was going to post something about them being a socialist state, but they really are not, at least by the real definition of socialism. I guess they would be by the Sarah Palin tea party people. I've been to Norway, but not Sweden. All I know for sure is that there seems to be a lot of really cool build threads from people in Scandinavian countries.
TJ wrote: All I know for sure is that there seems to be a lot of really cool build threads from people in Scandinavian countries.
Long winters, heated garage, much booze....
Seems like they like their turbos as well.
You'll need to log in to post.
