Wikileaks.... - Page 11 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2010, 12:38 PM   #201
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA, Germany, Afghanistan
Posts: 2,967
Total Cats: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Finally, Wikileaks has NOT published anything that has caused anyone harm. Get this through your heads, people. All they have done is published stuff that has embarrassed our politicians for lying and backstabbing.

Why the hell is this a bad thing? If our politicians are lying to us, shouldn't we have the right to know about it? If our politicians are backstabbers, shouldn't we have the right to know about it?
You're a ******* idiot, do you seriously not think that printing documents with informants name sin them is a bad thing?

Quite frankly, no, at least not if this is the capacity in which we find out. there is protection out there for "whistle blowers" that utilize the proper channels to reveal illegal/immoral operations. This is not a situation where that was the purpose, the ******** motive was to hurt the US Government, US Military, and Coalition forces in any way that he could, when are you going to get THAT through YOUR head?
KPLAFIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:40 PM   #202
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

-sigh- No, no that's not the case. And I'm telling you this when I've read most of what they've published KP.

This is being blown out of proportion, and politicians are trying to save their asses. Wikileaks has actual damaging material on their hands, they haven't published it. What they HAVE published gives our politicians a black eye, but even our politicians admit no one has been harmed by it - unless you consider politicians being proved as liars harm.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:43 PM   #203
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,896
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

this has not really been blown out of proportion. if anything, it's been downplayed.


what have you learned from these leaked state department cables? the same ones any person with a clearance can read everyday?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:44 PM   #204
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

(Edit) Nice ninja edit Brain. As for what you said: No, it HAS been blown out of proportion. The Pentagon Papers were far, far more damaging than anything Wikileaks has done. You didn't see the same reaction back then.

That our politicians are gossipy SOBs that belong back in high school and need their asses kicked?
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:47 PM   #205
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA, Germany, Afghanistan
Posts: 2,967
Total Cats: 3
Default

Why don't you gun run for office somewhere, you seem to have the mental capacity of the average congressman, you'll fit right in.
KPLAFIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:50 PM   #206
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,326
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPLAFIN View Post
I still want an explanation of where the "journalism" involved in this particular situation is, I see no journalists.

Re-quoted, as this is kind of a key point that I think bears repeating.

We will, for the moment, handwave over the issue of Assange's citizenship and just pretend that he lives and works in the US.

Wikileaks isn't "the press".

The Press consists of organizations that go out and do actual newsgathering. They analyze information, conduct interviews, present editorial commentary, and in general, they create content.

Now, you might be able to make an argument that some of the various members of the global community of Bloggers & Co. (including websites such as the so-called Huffington Post), collectively, constitute a sort of micro-press. While they don't typically expend resources to do original newsgathering, they do provide analysis and commentary, and act as a sort of aggregator and filter. It's sort of a fine-line, of course. At some point, this line of reasoning could be applied to claim that every fool with a printer (or in a slightly older time, a photocopier) can be "the press" just by handing out leaflets espoucing his or her point of view. (Basically, the Mel Gibson character from "Conspiracy Theory")


Wikileaks, by comparison, is nothing more than a drop-box. Assange isn't gathering news, he's not analyzing facts, he's not providing any added-value whatsoever. All he's done is create a service which encourages others to steal information (whether it be corporate trade secrets or government documents) and provides a safe and anonymous mechanism for them to distribute this information.

Wikileaks is Napster.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:54 PM   #207
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Gainesville,Fl
Posts: 3,354
Total Cats: 7
Default

Blaen, you are acting in contravention of our objectives. You are now classified as an enemy of the state, a crime punishable by death.

turotufas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:56 PM   #208
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

Unrelated to the topic, but just ran across this.

Back to topic:

Joe, I disagree. Wikileaks has journalistic intentions. People are trying to twist and manipulate things so as to narrowly define Wikileaks into a specific category so they can fulfill a political agenda.

This is bad for our country. People accuse Wikileaks of targetting the US - it has already been covered they do NOT focus on the US, nor do they publish with the intent of causing the US harm. People throw similar wild accusations across the board, without knowing what they are talking about and solely to serve a political purpose.

This is not a good thing. Go read the Wikileaks documents, Joe. You'll come over to my side quickly. Why?

Because there's nothing in there other than our politicians being ******* high school *****.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 12:57 PM   #209
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,896
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The Pentagon Papers were far, far more damaging than anything Wikileaks has done. You didn't see the same reaction back then.
Because it was an American Patriot who risked his career and jail time to inform the public about the current administrations wrong doings. There's a big difference.

It's not about the damage. The ends do not justify the means.



and FWIW, The courts really didn't "state quite clearly, that it is not illegal to publish leaks." The ruling was that the gov't failed to meet the burden of proof required for the restraint injunction placed on the papers publishing the documents.

The Gov't used a section out of the Espionage Act for their injunction. Nothing in the pentagon papers were proved to be "...relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

So they lost the case.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:01 PM   #210
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
Because it was an American Patriot who risked his career and jail time to inform the public about the current administrations wrong doings. There's a big difference.

It's not about the damage. The ends do not justify the means.



and FWIW, The courts really didn't "state quite clearly, that it is not illegal to publish leaks." The ruling was that the gov't failed to meet the burden of proof required for the restraint injunction placed on the papers publishing the documents.

The Gov't used a section out of the Espionage Act for their injunction. Nothing in the pentagon papers were proved to be "...relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

So they lost the case.
You are forgetting that in our county, it is assumed legal unless proven illegal (Simplified, more to it, blah blah blah).

The only established court precedent on this is that it is legal to publish classified information if you are not the leaker.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:04 PM   #211
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,896
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

yeah, but you're allowed to ask for an injunction, they did and failed.

unlike the "immigration" bill in AZ which had their injunction upheld.

what's your point?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:04 PM   #212
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_795014.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by KPLAFIN View Post
Oh great, Huffington Post, this should be interesting to read...
Oh great, you didn't click, it was a transcript of a speech Ron Paul delivered:

Quote:
In the wake of the recent WikiLeaks document dump, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), the self-styled libertarian crusader who's spent the past half-decade building up a massive grassroots following, has emerged as a principal voice in support of the transparency that WikiLeaks has provided. In a speech on the House floor yesterday, Paul held forth at length on the controversy.

Others may disagree, but I don't read Paul's remarks as a defense of Julian Assange specifically -- Assange is only mentioned three times during the five minute oration. This was perhaps wise, given the fact that Assange is facing charges unrelated to WikiLeaks abroad, and has become a fractious enough figure within the WikiLeaks organization itself that internecine battles have broken out, with one faction preparing to open their own site, "OpenLeaks." But it's certainly a defense of WikiLeaks in principle, and whistleblowers in general -- Paul spends more time discussing Daniel Ellsberg than he does Assange.

On balance, Paul's speech primarily touches on themes that he's advanced throughout his career: his antipathy to neo-conservative empire-building, the lies that precipitated the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the primacy of individual liberty, and the value of dissent. WikiLeaks simply gives Paul's convictions some urgency.v
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:05 PM   #213
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
yeah, but you're allowed to ask for an injunction, they did and failed.

unlike the "immigration" bill in AZ which had their injunction upheld.

what's your point?
My point is this:

Why has our government not pursued real legal means against Assange and Wikileaks, but instead has been involved in political skullduggery, FUD, and generally doing anything but pursuing this in a way one would if laws were broken and if what Assange is being accused of is true, other methods that they would have available to them?
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:07 PM   #214
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,896
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

because they are the gov't and they are here to help you!
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:07 PM   #215
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,326
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The NYT did the same thing Wikileaks did initially with the Pentagon papers, simply publishing them with no commentary.

Supreme Court additionally stated quite clearly, in a decision in this very thread, that it is not illegal to publish leaks.
No, they absolutely did NOT say that.


What the court said was that, in the specific instance of the Pentagon Papers case, the government failed to demonstrate that its need for secrecy was superior to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, and that the requirements for Prior Restraint were therefore unfulfilled.

In other words, the court specifically and deliberately allowed for the possibility that in some other instances, the need for secrecy might outweigh the interest of the press.



I've said this a number of times in this thread, and I'm going to say it again because it's clear that some folks aren't getting it: Not everything in life is Black or White, True or False, Legal or Illegal, For Us or Against Us.

There are many shades of grey.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:08 PM   #216
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,896
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

im glad you said shade and not color. black is a shade. white is a value.


is that racist?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:10 PM   #217
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
because they are the gov't and they are here to help you!
Damnit Brain. Quit with the ninja-editing :P

But seriously, Assange is in custody. Do you really think we couldn't get the UK to extradite him to the US if we had a case? If Assange had actually done anything wrong? If he actually published anything damaging (And by damaging, I mean NOT embarassing politicians)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
No, they absolutely did NOT say that.


What the court said was that, in the specific instance of the Pentagon Papers case, the government failed to demonstrate that its need for secrecy was superior to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, and that the requirements for Prior Restraint were therefore unfulfilled.

In other words, the court specifically and deliberately allowed for the possibility that in some other instances, the need for secrecy might outweigh the interest of the press.



I've said this a number of times in this thread, and I'm going to say it again because it's clear that some folks aren't getting it: Not everything in life is Black or White, True or False, Legal or Illegal, For Us or Against Us.

There are many shades of grey.
Okay, I'll grant you that. To some extent, I overstate it.

However, again. Go read the Wikileaks releases if you want proof. There's just...nothing in there that is damaging to us beyond embarrassing politicians. Politicians we should be demanding resign, at that. They are desperately squirming for their careers right now, and trying to distract people.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:11 PM   #218
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,326
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Go read the Wikileaks documents, Joe. You'll come over to my side quickly. Why?

Because there's nothing in there other than our politicians being ******* high school *****.
No, I won't. You seem to presume that I'm acting under the assumption that the documents in this specific case contain some incredibly important military secrets, or that releasing them will cause irreparable harm to our nation. I'm not making that assumption at all, mostly because I admit that I don't know what information might ultimately be damaging and what information might not be.

I'm simply stating the fact that, by my interpretations of US Law:

1: It is not always "OK" to publish classified documents, without restriction, just because someone other than you did the initial theft.

and

2: Wikileaks is acting in a criminal capacity.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:16 PM   #219
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,326
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
However, again. Go read the Wikileaks releases if you want proof. There's just...nothing in there that is damaging to us beyond embarrassing politicians.
And again, the actual contents of the documents are not relevant.

Folks are trying to argue that Assange is not a criminal because the particular classified information that his website facilitated the release of wasn't particularly damaging. And that's just not the case.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 01:17 PM   #220
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,896
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
However, again. Go read the Wikileaks releases if you want proof. There's just...nothing in there that is damaging to us beyond embarrassing politicians. Politicians we should be demanding resign, at that. They are desperately squirming for their careers right now, and trying to distract people.

I can't. I have a clearance that's not high enough to allow access to this level of classified documents. I risk losing it if I do, let alone talk about the classified information within the cables.


I understand your point, but you are discounting mine and Joe's. If you read most of my posts, or my signature, you should be able to feel out my viewpoint on gov't very easily.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02 PM.