WikiLeaks

[Zhukov]

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

[Tadao]

Under what charges?

[Dimnos]

Communist ideology.

[The Leader]

He raped a couple girls in Sweden.

[Dimnos]

I thought that was just hearsay.

[Tadao]

The CIA is back on the job!

[Fathom Zero]

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]

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

[Dimnos]

http://yearinreview.yahoo.com/2010/us_top_10_searches#Top%2010%20Searches


BP Oil Spill
World Cup
Miley Cyrus
Kim Kardashian
Lady Gaga
iPhone
Megan Fox
Justin Bieber
American Idol
Britney Spears

35TbGjt-weA

[Blasted Child]

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 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332) the op-ed Assange authored for The Australian yesterday.

[Colonel Flagg]

BP Oil Spill
World Cup
Miley Cyrus
Kim Kardashian
Lady Gaga
iPhone
Megan Fox
Justin Bieber
American Idol
Britney Spears

Where's Mel Gibson? >:

[elx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332) 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]

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.

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.



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.


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]

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]

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]

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]

... <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]

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]

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]

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

[Tadao]

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]

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

[Dimnos]

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

[Tadao]

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]

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

HHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH WHAT A FUNNY JOKE YOU SEE

[Dimnos]

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

[Dimnos]

In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45930.html

[Pentegarn]

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?

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.

"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?)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.


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.



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.





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.


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.



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.



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.



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]

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]

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

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

[Dimnos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Pentegarn]

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]

effect affect the innocent

[kahljorn]

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

[Zhukov]

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.


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]

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]

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.


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.


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.


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.



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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]

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?


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.



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?


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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.


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?

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]

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]

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.



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.




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.


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]

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]

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]

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

[Pentegarn]

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]

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

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]

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.



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"?


.....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?

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?



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.



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]

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

[Pentegarn]

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]

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]

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

[Zhukov]

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]

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]

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

[kahljorn]

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

[Colonel Flagg]

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 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=12381886)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]

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]

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]

BTW, I compare him to Fox News.

[Pentegarn]

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]

You would be perfect for a CEO of a company.

[Blasted Child]

Ok, for a minute there I thought Pentegarn was serious

[Zhukov]

Nature itself is not serious.

[Pentegarn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

JUST POINTING OUT THE FACTS

[Dimnos]

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/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html


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/democracyhr-english/2008/June/20080630215145eaifas0.6333842.html


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/democracyhr-english/2008/June/20080630215145eaifas0.6333842.html


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]

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

[MLE]

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

[Pentegarn]

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]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2009/04/06/north_korea_parade.jpg

[The Leader]

Look at them gams.

[Zhukov]

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]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2009/04/06/north_korea_parade.jpg

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (!): 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 (http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/)

[Fathom Zero]

woo secrets

[kahljorn]

"There ought to be limits to freedom."

The mother of all oxymorons.


So is freedom being limitless :O

[executioneer]

dearest willie,

are we supposed to wash the inside of a banana?

love,
elx

i can't see any reason why you would need to! wait do you mean the FRUIT part of the banana? um there'd only be a need if it got split open or otherwise compromised and even then if you're worried about it you're probably better off just getting another banana

[Blasted Child]

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.

One rather notable leak is Bradley Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning).

However, considering how the general concensus is that such whistleblowers, including Assange himself, should be hanged or at least imprisoned for life, I understand if they prefer to remain anonymous.

[Colonel Flagg]

So is freedom being limitless :O

OK, you got me. :)

[Tadao]

One rather notable leak is Bradley Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning).

However, considering how the general concensus is that such whistleblowers, including Assange himself, should be hanged or at least imprisoned for life, I understand if they prefer to remain anonymous.

I demand the same transparency they demand, no matter what the cost. Are you saying keeping secrects can be good at some times? How can I ever know if their name is kept secrets! People like you stop this world from progress!

[Blasted Child]

Well, I sort of gave you the name of the most prominent whistleblower, so I don't know what you're whining about.

Secondly, hell yeah, I believe there should be plenty of secrets. I think there's plenty of material that should be kept away from the public eye. Patient journals, private details like religious conviction, sexual preferences, and all sorts of confidential material like therapy sessions, confessions, legal counselling, you name it.

An important difference is that the material published at Wikileaks is not about people's private secrets, it's about their roles as statesmen and representatives of the people. It's about what they do when they're at work. And they're elected by us, and work for us, so if they're wasting our time and money cooking up trouble and being corrupt and ignorant, we deserve to know.

[Dimnos]

Rights of the people vs rights of the government.

[Tadao]

I want all of their names. They are no longer working as private citizens, they are now acting as employees of the world. They have no rights to privacy.

[Tadao]

Not to mention 95 percent of these people probably work for a government. Therefore those people that do should be named publicly. The only way to know for sure is if all of their names are made public.

This appears to be my new right to information and transparency.

[elx]

what are you going on about? did you even try to get their names? WikiLeaks is managed by a small team of people, their identities aren't supposed to be secret. the site runs by allowing anyone to upload and submit documents anonymously, the team then outsource the work of verifying the documents to volunteer investigative journalists working for places like the New York Times and The Guardian. been going on for years.

[The Leader]

elx you're dumb

[Tadao]

very dumb

[elx]

but i was so sure that you were being serious :(

[Tadao]

try reading

[Dimnos]

Express your thoughts in paint drawings. I understood you better back then. :\

[MLE]

Guys, they can't tell if you're being serious unless you use the right emoticons :rolleyes

[kahljorn]

I was being serious. Transparency of Government is something everybody thinks we need but in reality its retarded and it really doesn't help democracy at all. Also, we don't technically live in a "Democracy" but a representational democracy, and the reason why we have a representational democracy instead of a regular democracy is because we accept that people are way too stupid to rule a country. The only reason people are allowed to vote is to keep it from becoming an unchanging tyranny. Its a check of power, not a right to rule or anything.

Freedom of the press and transparency can only help a nation that is lead by reason and not EMOTIONS AND STUPIDITY, of which America is the later. In a nation led by EMOTIONS AND STUPIDITY practically every political act would seem unreasonable.

Most people prolly don't even want transparency they just want political reality tv so they can get all asshurt about shit and have stuff to talk about.

[Pentegarn]

I can't help but wonder why it's OK to call it freedom of the press when they aren't doing any actual journalism, when all they are actually doing is posting things that are in fact the property of other entities? Journalism should have content that was written by the 'journalist' in question.

While we're on the subject, doesn't journalism require a degree? If every poster, blogger, and user of the internet is suddenly a journalist, then why not say next that I am a doctor because I put a band aid on a child? Heck I got a speeding ticket, pled guilty and paid the fine, by these new looser standards on what makes one an accredited professional in their field, I am currently a trial lawyer. :lol

[Zhukov]

Because media and journalism aren't the same word.

And why would journalism require a degree? What does that avenue of reasoning have to do with ANYTHING anyway?

[Pentegarn]

Why would journalism require a degree? Because it does. You have to go to college to get a journalism degree. Try going to CNN without a journalism degree and applying for a journalist position. They would laugh you out of the building. Posting something on the internet does not make you a journalist, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Just like me pleading guilty on a speeding ticket doesn't make me a trial lawyer. Otherwise we would all be journalists. We tell each other stuff here all the time. Doesn't make us an accredited source though.

[Pentegarn]

Most people prolly don't even want transparency they just want political reality tv so they can get all asshurt about shit and have stuff to talk about.

This is probably the most accurate statement I have ever heard about the whole transparency thing

[Zhukov]

Why would journalism require a degree? Because it does. You have to go to college to get a journalism degree. Try going to CNN without a journalism degree and applying for a journalist position. They would laugh you out of the building. Posting something on the internet does not make you a journalist, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Just like me pleading guilty on a speeding ticket doesn't make me a trial lawyer. Otherwise we would all be journalists. We tell each other stuff here all the time. Doesn't make us an accredited source though.

Right, so you can only be a journalist if you work for CNN et al, but not if you write your own journalism. Gotcha.

Also, nobody said that posting something on the internet made you a journalist. People said that releasing news items on the internet made you part of the media. Your straw man needs more work.

[Pentegarn]

Look, just because it is an absolute fact that your beloved anti American propaganda machine is not an accredited source that matters, just because it is about as reliable as a Coolinator post because it is a den of cowards posting stolen information anonymously without any story about said information whatsoever, doesn't mean you need to take it out on me with 19th century terms like straw man :lol

[Tadao]

HOW NAIVE!

[Zhukov]

Julian Assange is not a hacker that steals military secrets. Do you honestly, after all this, still not get that?

Your posts and arguments are getting more retarded each time you're proven wrong :\

What are you actually arguing? Wikileaks can't be trusted? That the leaked information is all lies?

[Pentegarn]

At this point, I have said my piece. Now, I am just annoying an American hating pinko and laughing while doing it

And by the way, anyone thick enough to honestly believe communism is a good thing despite it repeatedly failing everywhere it is implemented has no right whatsoever telling anyone their arguments are retarded. :lol

[MLE]

When deciding the sides of who wins a debate, I don't just consider the points that are made, but also whether or not the person acted like a child or not- resorting to petty insults and such.

Just thought you'd like to know how you come across to everyone else, Mr. Garn.

[The Leader]

And by the way, anyone thick enough to honestly believe communism is a good thing despite it repeatedly failing everywhere it is implemented has no right whatsoever telling anyone their arguments are retarded. :lol
Where has communism ever actually been implemented? Or are you just talking about the governments that claim that they are "socialist" and "communist" even as a handful of elites exploit the labor of the proletariat?

[Zhukov]

If you're done then be done; every thread that I post an opinion in doesn't have to eventually make it's way back to how wrong my political ideas are.

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

What happened?

[kahljorn]

I think they make a good point though. how valid can your political views be if they all involve your religious view

[Pentegarn]

When deciding the sides of who wins a debate, I don't just consider the points that are made, but also whether or not the person acted like a child or not- resorting to petty insults and such.

Just thought you'd like to know how you come across to everyone else, Mr. Garn.

Oh like when Zhukov called me retarded or said I think the holocaust should have been covered up?

But why would I expect any sort of consistency from you, that would be silly

What happened?

I think I just answered that one for you

[Zhukov]

No, I said your arguments are getting retarded (Julian Assange is a cyber terrorist thief, and wikileaks is a dedicated anti-American propaganda machine - really? :\) and only asked you whether the holocaust should have been uncovered or not - since you were saying that governments should have the right to keep whatever secrets they deem necessary.

[Pentegarn]

Implications like you made are as good as saying it directly, and you knew that when you posted it

[Zhukov]

I wasn't implying anything other than what I said. The fact that you think wikileaks can't be trusted (or that's what I assume you are saying) because Julian Assange hacks into US military computers and steals secret documents IS retarded.

[Pentegarn]

So your big defense of Assange is he didn't directly hack things and steal information himself? That others did it for him? That he created a place that encourages these acts therefore his hands are washed of these actions?

Sorry, that defense doesn't work. But since you like holocaust comparisons so much, let's use it right back on you to show you why. Hitler ordered the killing of 6 million Jewish people, and then let his men carry out the orders, so by your belief that the burden of guilt belongs only on those who directly acted, that would absolve him of the Holocaust. Yet, history disagrees with you, and so do I

[The Leader]

I think that Zhukov thinks that you're saying that the information that wikileaks released is not credible or something and I think that you think that military secrets and crap like that which would get people killed should not be released to the public, but I have yet to see any information released that would in fact pose a grave threat to national security. Everything that I have read in these leaks is largely information that anyone semi-interested in foreign relations and US politics would be able to infer or safely assume just from reading about it over time from the general media.

This includes the list of facilities which are listed as being vital to the United State's security in the leaks. Ports? Oil pipelines? Manufacturing plants? Mines? Communication systems? OH WOW THANK YOU WIKI LEAKS I WOULD HAVE NEVER KNOWN THESE THINGS COULD BE IMPORTANT OR THEIR LOCATIONS WITHOUT YOU

Because I'm sure that terrorists and other states don't have access to an online search engine, maps or common sense but do have access to wikileaks.

[kahljorn]

why put all of the work into searching when you can just pull up wikileaks and have everything you need? Wikileaks is like a superwalmart for terrorists

[executioneer]

well so is google, then

[kahljorn]

why put all of the work into searching
gahoiefaho

[Blasted Child]

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

Will the world end because of WW3? Alien attacks? A Meteor??? Nuclear bombs???
NO YOU FOOLS ITS FROM TOO MUCH TRANSPARENCY!
THERE IS NOTHING AS DESCTRUCTIVE AS FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY!!!
PENTEGARN WILL SAY "I TOLD YOU SO!" FOR HE HATH FORESEEN THE APOCALYPSE

[executioneer]

gahoiefaho
what, like google-searching is hard or something

[kahljorn]

sometimes

[executioneer]

man they should just mandate links to tvtropes be put on everything wikileaks posts, then everyone will be too distracted to do terrorism based on their information

[kahljorn]

COUNTER-TERRORIST WILLIE

[Zhukov]

So your big defense of Assange is he didn't directly hack things and steal information himself? That others did it for him? That he created a place that encourages these acts therefore his hands are washed of these actions?

Sorry, that defense doesn't work. But since you like holocaust comparisons so much, let's use it right back on you to show you why. Hitler ordered the killing of 6 million Jewish people, and then let his men carry out the orders, so by your belief that the burden of guilt belongs only on those who directly acted, that would absolve him of the Holocaust. Yet, history disagrees with you, and so do I

"Your belief that the burden of guilt belongs only to those who directly acted..."

Ah, no. Stop making things up. You've only come to that conclusion through a warping of your own ideas and opinions. Assange neither hacked for these things, nor told other people to hack or steal it. Christ, nothing was hacked into or stolen - it was LEAKED. Wikileaks didn't need to steal it since it was GIVEN TO THEM by people wishing to LEAK the information. Those people in turn had it given to them or put in their responsibility.

Now, which is it - Assange steals military secrets, or he has people steal it for him? Either way it's dumb, but I want to know what you are saying here. While you are there, where are you getting your proof that Assange is hacking into things?

Also;

That he created a place that encourages these acts...

Are you saying that wikileaks ENCOURAGES people to hack into the military and steal information? How does it encourage them? Does it pay them? Any leaked documents are submitted anonymously.

While we are here, and since you are not as done as you say you are; what military secrets are we talking about? The ones that will bring about the destruction of American society should they become public.


Blasted Child:

I am too scared to even think up the situation where government transparency brings about the FALL OF MAN. I'm sure it exists.

[Blasted Child]

http://www.esseb.com/andail/transparency.jpg

[Zhukov]

:lol

[kahljorn]

Christ, nothing was hacked into or stolen - it was LEAKED. Wikileaks didn't need to steal it since it was GIVEN TO THEM by people wishing to LEAK the information. Those people in turn had it given to them or put in their responsibility.


Doesn't the whole idea of leaking imply that it was stolen information sorta? Like when somebody "leaks" a movie (WHICH PEOPLE GET ARRESTED/SUED FOR BY THE WAY) or videogame its considered theft. You say that like the people leaking the information have a right to leak it. it wasn't given to them or put into their responsibility meaning they could do whatever they want with it.
Also leaking military information is considered a crime labeled as SEDITION and you can get court-martialed and shit from it. So, yea, actually wikileaks is encouraging an environment of sedition.

As for transparency hurting a country I'm sure we can think of something :O
I'm sure there's been some stock market crashes/depressions caused by transparency which incited a panic in people.

[Blasted Child]

Newsflash! Stock market crashes and the depression weren't caused by the flawed mechanism of capitalism! It wasn't because bankers deliberately inflated the value of their shares, it wasn't because people borrowed money they couldn't pay back, encouraged by cynical and short-sighted politicans and already mentioned bankers, or housing bubbles that just had to burst, no no no!
WHAT WAS IT? I WONDER IF IT WAS THAT WRETCHED TRANSPARENCY AGAIN!!!?

[Dimnos]

Why would journalism require a degree? Because it does. You have to go to college to get a journalism degree. Try going to CNN without a journalism degree and applying for a journalist position...

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/blitzer.wolf.jpg
Wolf Blitzer
Does not have a degree in Journalism.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/hammer.aj.bio.approved.jpg
A.J. Hammer
Does not have a degree in Journalism

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/cooper.anderson.b.jpg
My main man Anderson Cooper
Does not have a degree in Journalism

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/king.larry.jpg
Larry King
Didnt even go to college.

http://www.famouscouple.com/pics/ted_turner.jpg
Ted Turner (founder of CNN)
Was expelled from collage.

[Blasted Child]

http://www.esseb.com/andail/transparency2.jpg

[kahljorn]

blasted child is trying to be funny?

it seems out of character

[Colonel Flagg]

I guess what we need to do is block sites with sensitive information, and make it impossible for people to blog about, or post sensitive information, perhaps by hiring some computer gurus who are loyal to their government and who can either selectively apply DNS attacks on those sites, or delete them from the web entirely. Then they could trace the perpetrators, and either have them arrested, or detained .....

Oh wait, China already does this don't they.

[kahljorn]

you know what else we should do is let torrent sites just do their thing cause ultimately torrents are just information and there is a freedom of information act

[Dimnos]

In many parts of the world, the freedom of the press is the last—or even the only—safeguard against the complete erosion of all other human rights. The horrific murder of Daniel Pearl that shocked the world also opened our eyes to the abuse and harassment that many journalists face, too often at the hands of government authorities. With this bill, we pay tribute to Daniel’s life and his work by shedding a bright light on this repression, and hope to prevent this sort of tragedy from ever happening again.


We hope this legislation will help the United States work with other nations to better protect his colleagues serving on the frontlines in the fight for greater accountability and transparency. Freedom of expression cannot exist where journalists are not safe from persecution and attack. Our government must promote freedom of the press by putting on center stage those countries in which journalists are killed, imprisoned, kidnapped, threatened, or censored.

http://www.danielpearl.org/news_and_press/articles/043010_Daniel_Pearl_Freedom_President.pdf

[kahljorn]

Our government must promote freedom of the press by putting on center stage those countries in which journalists are killed, imprisoned, kidnapped, threatened, or censored.

I guess since we don't kill, imprison, kidnap threaten or censor we're ok right??

seems more like they are using freedom of the press as an excuse to violate laws in other countries. Basically, isn't he saying he wants to use journalists as spies and we should support this cause its like passive-aggressive spying?

[Dimnos]

Of course. ;)

[kahljorn]

just another example of how these journalists are trying to undermine authority with their dangerous sedition and "transparency"

[The Leader]

I guess since we don't kill, imprison, kidnap threaten or censor we're ok right??
What's funny is that we support many countries which do this 100%. Thanks for the oil, Saudi Arabia!

[Dimnos]

American torture interrogation questioning includes threats to ship your ass off to aforementioned countries.

http://www.appliedlanguage.com/flags_of_the_world/large_flag_of_jordan.gif

[Tadao]

I'm still waiting for the information I requested from wikilinks. I guess they aren't for transparency at all, they only wave that flag when it benefits them.

[kahljorn]

I'm disappointed in our government for trying to force our laws and traditions on other people. Is that in the spirit of freedom?? :lol

[Blasted Child]

Here's today's pop quiz, kids

The Great Depression was caused by

1. Over-indebtedness and deflation, along with a growing housing bubble
2. Too much transparency

(A clue: There was very little transparency at this time, and normal people had to wait outside the stock exchange and wait for news through word of mouth. Most ordinary share holders were kept in the dark.)

[kahljorn]

here's a clue: nobody actually knows what caused the great depression

[Dimnos]

Everyone knows the great depression came about when transparency caused everyone to loose faith in the governments ability to safeguard their money which resulted in the closure of the FDIC. :rolleyes

[Blasted Child]

Yeah, let's blame it on people's reactions, instead of what they are in fact reacting on

[kahljorn]

:lol
yea everybody knows that the real cause of every depression and recession is PANIC as EVIDENCED by this picture:


http://www.esseb.com/andail/transparency.jpg


I believe you yourself posted this compelling document which so accurately depicts every recessionary force. I BELIEVE THIS ARGUMENT IS NOW FINISHED

[Pentegarn]

just another example of how these journalists are trying to undermine authority with their dangerous sedition and "transparency"

Don't worry, blasted child and Zhukov will come up with another convoluted spin on why this doesn't equate.

Ultimately, they will find they are in the un-silent minority, I have questioned dozens of people about this. To a man they all agree wikileaks is a destructive force, that full transparency is unrealistic, and that the only people who are for wikileaks are those who love to hate America

Earlier the founding fathers were quoted talking about the need for open governments. But the thing is that these things they said were said in a time when all you needed to defend your life and your property was a gun. It isn't that simple now. For example, the SSA is a government organization, if Zhukov and Blasted Child have their way, hundreds of millions of Social Security numbers will be considered public record because they are after all government documents. A gun can't defend you from an identity thief that then uses that posted information to steal your identity from halfway across the world. But hey, let's get all that government information out there we have a right to it right? :rolleyes

[executioneer]

well the whole using a ssn to determine someone's identity is such a flawed and archaic system anyways
we should just switch to getting rfid chips embedded at birth, then the only way to steal someone's identity will be to chop off bits

[Zhukov]

Don't worry, blasted child and Zhukov will come up with another convoluted spin on why this doesn't equate.

How DOES it equate? You haven't manged to say why government transparency will lead to the collapse of free American society.

Ultimately, they will find they are in the un-silent minority, I have questioned dozens of people about this. To a man they all agree wikileaks is a destructive force, that full transparency is unrealistic, and that the only people who are for wikileaks are those who love to hate America
Ah, rats. Defeated by the 'everyone I've talked to agrees with me' argument. Damn! Gets me every time! If all the people that Pentegarn has questioned agree that (despite not even knowing about my existence) I hate America, it must be true. Damn!


Earlier the founding fathers were quoted talking about the need for open governments. But the thing is that these things they said were said in a time when all you needed to defend your life and your property was a gun. It isn't that simple now. For example, the SSA is a government organization, if Zhukov and Blasted Child have their way, hundreds of millions of Social Security numbers will be considered public record because they are after all government documents. A gun can't defend you from an identity thief that then uses that posted information to steal your identity from halfway across the world. But hey, let's get all that government information out there we have a right to it right? :rolleyes
A few pages ago you can find Blasted Child pointing out what kind of information SHOULD be considered confidential and private.


So, where is your proof that Julian Assange or Wikileaks are hacking into and stealing US military secrets?

What are the sensitive military secrets that Wikileaks has stolen, and why are they so dangerous if people know about them?

How does Wikileaks encourage other people to hack and steal information for them?

[Tadao]

A few pages ago you can find Blasted Child pointing out what kind of information SHOULD be considered confidential and private.

Wait, so the right kind of transparency is the kind in which Blasted Child gets to decide what the world can see and they they can't? That's not very transperent at all.

[kahljorn]

apparently some levels of opaqueness are acceptable however it is to be determined by whomever is not someone you agree with

[kahljorn]

What's funny is that we support many countries which do this 100%. Thanks for the oil, Saudi Arabia!

Isn't that, too, a part of freedom? ;)

[Blasted Child]

Typical American Patriot: "Don't trust the government! We should protect and care for ourselves, that's why we should all get to carry guns!"
Me: "Yeah, that Bush character seems a bit shady."
TAP: "Don't bad-mouth our president! Stop hating America! If you're not with us you're against us!!"
Me: "Ok, ok, fine."
TAP: "Now that liberal hippie Obama is in charge! He can't be trusted! He's probably not even born in the US!!"
Me: "Well, since you can't seem to trust your government, I guess you should demand more transparency."
TAP: "Transparency??? We're doing just fine!! Stop hating America!"
Me: "Ok, ok, just saying that if there was more transparency, your leaders wouldn't get away with being corrupt and negligent and incompetent as easily."
TAP: "Shut up you fucking commie!!"
Me: "Aren't the nations you (wrongly) associate with communism characterised by their lack of governmental transparency?"
TAP: "I've talked to dozens of my colleagues over at the windshield repair shop, and they all agree with me, and they all agree you hate America!!"
Me: "Ok, you win."

[kahljorn]

Blastedchild if youcan't take this conversation seriously maybe you should go find s message board with more teenagers.

The funny thing is that it was pretty widely known before bush even got into office that he was corrupt, and yet...

it was pretty widely known what bush's reasons for going to war were and yet...

[kahljorn]

Like people even know the difference between "A growing housing bubble" and a "REAL GUUT DEAL ON MY HOUSE"

WHYS DA GOVERNMENT INTERFERIN WITH MY CHAP HOUSES. ISNT A GROWING HOUSING BUUBA A GOOD THING? LIKE THAT MEANS THERE WILL BE MORE HOUSES RIGHT AND PEOPLE WILL BUY THEM ALL AND LIVE INSIDE THE BUBBAS SO WHYS THE GUBERMENT INCREASIN MY MARTGAGE.

[Tadao]

Typical Sweden : I can't say Hitler was an evil leader that needed to be stopped because I must remain neutral.

[kahljorn]

Typical and legitimate American concerns about the housing market:

WHERE WILL ALL THE GOOD WITCHES LIVE WHEN THE HOUSIng bUBBLE BURSTS
OUR LEADERS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS!!!!!!!!!!

[Tadao]

So Blasted Child, now that you have all this information, what are you planning to do with it? Other than complaining about the injustices of the world on the internet.

[Tadao]

Oh wait, I asked a Sweed to commit to a political stance. That was unfair of me.

[Tadao]

Sweden is like the political version of a peeping tom with erectile dysfunction.

[kahljorn]

isnt sweden the place charging him with surprise sex?

:lol

i guess swedes startle easily

a lot of heart attacks are caused by surprise sex in sweden

[Tadao]

:lol

[Blasted Child]

I like how you make it sound like I support the policies of the Swedish government, or am somehow responsible for it...

"He sad something bad about USA!!" (although I didn't) "Let's get back at him by saying bad things about Sweden, that should shut him up!"

Just to get it out of your system; I'm not a fan of the Swedish government, in fact I take every opportunity I can to criticize it in Swedish media.

It must seem very alien to you, to nurture such anti-patriotic ideas

[Tadao]

Oh, I thought we were making general assumptions about people based on where they lived. Of course you're gonna back down and be all wishy washy now, being a Sweed and all.

[Blasted Child]

Your obsession with Sweden and Swedes is touching. I should invite you over and introduce you to some tall, busty blondes, that should soften you up

[Zhukov]

Tadao I can't tell if you meant to make Switzerland generalisation jokes or not.

[Tadao]

No thanks, you guy seem really dull and depressing.

[Tadao]

Tadao I can't tell if you meant to make Switzerland generalisation jokes or not.

It's pretty sad that they are comparable in that way.

[Blasted Child]

Ouch, being called dull and depressing by Tadao must be the ultimate insult :(

[Zhukov]

It's pretty sad that they are comparable in that way.

Well, they're not, which is why I thought you were making a joke :\

Eh, never mind.

[Tadao]

Never mind what? During the world wars they were pussies.

[Zhukov]

Never mind because it isn't really a funny joke.

[Tadao]

It's pretty sad that they are comparable in that way.

Well, they're not, which is why I thought you were making a joke :\

Eh, never mind.

Never mind because it isn't really a funny joke.

Dude, make your point. Right now it looks to me like you think Sweden fought Hitler.

[Zhukov]

*Swedish generalisation*

I can't tell if you are thinking Sweden is Switzerland or not.

They are both the same.

Eh, not really but never mind.

They were both neutral.

It's not even funny never mind.

What's your point?

They were both officially neutral to Hitler, so even if you are mistakenly thinking that Sweden is Switzerland, or pretending to think that as a joke, I can't tell.

[Tadao]

You might think in your head I said "they were the same" but as you can see I said " It's pretty sad that they are comparable in that way."

So it's more like

Sweden was a pussy in WW2

Are you thinking about Switzerland?

No, but Switzerland was a giant pussy as well.

No

How is that no?

Nevermind.

[Zhukov]

Yeah ok, they are comparable in that regard. But you know, never mind.

[The Leader]

FUCK IKEA

[Tadao]

Yeah ok, they are comparable in that regard. But you know, never mind.

Yeah I know. So what is this other imaginary sentence I used to compare Sweden to Switzerland? At this point it look like you are confused as to Swedens role in WW2 or you are making shit up and claiming that people said it.

[Blasted Child]

Tadao, if it would make you feel better, I can play along and pretend to be extremely offended by your attacks on Sweden.

I can pretend that it hurts a lot to hear you talk about events that took place 40 years before my birth, by a government I don't support, and I can also take back everything I've said about transparency so far, because I've suddenly understood the logical connection between your endless indignant ramblings about Swedes being pussies and the dangers of governmental transparency, it just makes so much sense now!

[Blasted Child]

Sometimes when I enter this forum and there is a debate about international politics, I really think to myself "careful now, Blasted Child, don't push Tadao's buttons!" because I know how sensitive these things are, different nations and USA and Sweden and so on, I know that Tadao, but it's difficult, because your buttons are just so many and so big!

It's like "I'm just gonna... stretch... my arms a little and..." wham! I hit one of your buttons.

[kahljorn]

I like how you make it sound like I support the policies of the Swedish government, or am somehow responsible for it...



With all of your precious transparency in Sweden shouldn't your government be beyond simple mistakes like this?
seriously doesn't swden have like one of the highest transparencies in the world and yet they are the one violating this dudes rights

:lol

[Tadao]

I've written Blasted Child off as a political lummox months ago. When he's cornered he either doesn't reply at all or he tries the old OK YOU GOT ME YOU'RE SO SMART sarcasm routine. On top of it, if he does something like attack someone elses country with generalized stereotypes and it gets thrown back at him, he starts in with the same old tired line of WOW YOU SURE DO STUDY UP ON ME A LOT, YOU MUST REALLY WANT TO BE ME. It's the same routine every time and as predictable as a rock being dropped in a puddle of water.

It's funny to watch him butt into a conversation though when no one is even talking to him. HEY GUYS, THIS IS THE PERFECT PLACE FOR ME TO SAY MY LINE!

[Tadao]

Oh god, I just read what he wrote. He thinks he's pushing my buttons. :lol

[Blasted Child]

When exactly have you got me cornered, Tadao?

Also, I'm not sure the phrase "studied up" applies in your case...

But why don't you make a search through your own post history and look up where you've written stuff about "sweden", "swedish" or "swedes", and tell me if it doesn't come across as just a tad obsessive. Especially since most of those posts are not preceded by america-criticism on my part

[kahljorn]

http://thekrazycouponlady.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/swedish-fish.jpg

[The Leader]

Blasted Child doesn't know how to not be a serious sally. :(

[kahljorn]

lol sally

just a tad obsessive.

IntERESTING HOW YOU CALL HIM OBSESSIve AND YET

A TAD O TADAO WHATS THIS YOU THINK ABOUT HIM SUBCONSCIOUSLY

[Tadao]

:lol Because I know 2 things about Sweden

1: They are pussies when it comes to politics
2: If it wasn't for San Francisco, they would be the kings of self righteousness

I'm obsessive. In fact, you seem to know 10 times more about America than I know about Sweden. I guess that makes you a jealous stalker.

[Tadao]

When exactly have you got me cornered, Tadao?

I've already put you in a corner 3 times in this thread alone. I'm not gonna play your little Coolinator game where we go back to every point and explain where you failed because you are too fucking lame to figure it out. So instead I will give you a fresh brand new corner. I know how hard it is for you to keep up so it will be less tedious this way.

Tadao, if it would make you feel better, I can play along and pretend to be extremely offended by your attacks on Sweden.

I can pretend that it hurts a lot to hear you talk about events that took place 40 years before my birth, by a government I don't support, and I can also take back everything I've said about transparency so far, because I've suddenly understood the logical connection between your endless indignant ramblings about Swedes being pussies and the dangers of governmental transparency, it just makes so much sense now!

Were have I said that there are dangers in governmental transparency?

[Zhukov]

Ok, I support the mockery and downright abuse of people to the fullest extent. I like it when sarcasm and deceit makes stupid people mad, and causes them to look even more stupid.

It's not really funny at all if the people that you are trying to mock don't take the bait, it just makes you look a little desperate. Trying to find absolutely everyone's 'weak spot' inevitably means that you are going to encounter people that genuinely don't care if you try to make fun of them, or will just get annoyed after a few pages of nonsensical posts claiming that they have been 'backed into a corner' - is that what you are aiming for?

[kahljorn]

zhukov kinda sounds like he's backed into a corner

[Tadao]

Lol, this coming from the fact master.

[Tadao]

It's as if you skim the conversations and form your own opinion on what people are saying without actually reading all the words.

[Pentegarn]

They don't want to address anything to do with cause and effect. And every time I try to explain it they both refuse to listen then flat out ignore it without addressing the points about transparency having long term bad effects. When I give an example where many many lives are lost as a result of transparency, I get a smokescreen reply saying I think "that gassing Kurds and torturing civilians should have been kept classified? Best that nobody found out?". Instead of an honest assessment of what that actually shows. Not that I should be surprised, PR guilt trips and making your opponents look like they are heartless to hide the fact that you are mindless is a tried and true communist debate technique. If it isn't Zhukov attacking how kind you look to others, it is Blasted Child not posting a single thought or addressing a single point in dozens of posts. Unless you count drawings that a kindergartner would be ashamed to cop to as 'addressing points'

Meanwhile we are also asked, when did Assange directly do hacking or theft of government documents? I will address this once again. Possessing stolen property is a crime, and is treated itself as theft in the US. We do this sort of thing so criminals in the US so they can't hide behind, "but I didn't do it directly" Charles Manson for example sits forever in jail and yet has never murdered a soul, yet his actions resulted in the deaths of many innocent people.

I find it ironic, and very hypocritical that you demand the government take responsibility for what they do, but give a pass to wikileaks because of a painfully transparent anti America agenda

[The Leader]

you're retarded

[Pentegarn]

You think everyone is retarded though

[The Leader]

true :(

[kahljorn]

i like how his points could be easily refuted with like three carefuly placed sentences that will never come

[MLE]

I'm just popping in to say that all of these arguments/discussions/debates are going nowhere and have gone nowhere. I've gotten bored of reading it, so I'm just gonna stop.

Yeah, that's about it.

[Zhukov]

They don't want to address anything to do with cause and effect. And every time I try to explain it they both refuse to listen then flat out ignore it without addressing the points about transparency having long term bad effects. When I give an example where many many lives are lost as a result of transparency, I get a smokescreen reply saying I think "that gassing Kurds and torturing civilians should have been kept classified? Best that nobody found out?".

You haven't tried to explain it, you've just told us that we are naive for not realising it. How will government transparency lead to the collapse of American society and widespread chaos? What are the long term bad effects of having a government answer to its citizens? Oh, and that final sentence in the quote there isn't a statement on what you think, it's a question that you didn't answer.

So, where is your proof that Julian Assange or Wikileaks are hacking into and stealing US military secrets?

What are the sensitive military secrets that Wikileaks has stolen, and why are they so dangerous if people know about them?

How does Wikileaks encourage other people to hack and steal information for them?


Instead of an honest assessment of what that actually shows. Not that I should be surprised, PR guilt trips and making your opponents look like they are heartless to hide the fact that you are mindless is a tried and true communist debate technique.
:lol What? That is retarded. Please, please, I beg you, since it sounds like there are NUMEROUS examples, could you please provide an example of a communist PR guilt trip designed to hide mindlessness? :lol Not that this has nothing to do with anything, and you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if all you've got are 'typical communist debate technique' insults, but inquiring minds would like to know.


If it isn't Zhukov attacking how kind you look to others,

What? :lol I am attacking... how ... how kind you look? What does that mean?

it is Blasted Child not posting a single thought or addressing a single point in dozens of posts. Unless you count drawings that a kindergartner would be ashamed to cop to as 'addressing points' I found them funny. You are not addressing points that have been raised, so I don't think you should expect people to not just stop being serious and make fun of your inane arguments.

Meanwhile we are also asked, when did Assange directly do hacking or theft of government documents? I will address this once again....

This is the first time...

...Possessing stolen property is a crime, and is treated itself as theft in the US.

So he didn't hack into government military files and steal information then. So he is not the hacker thief you claimed he was. The possession of stolen goods might be a crime - I'm not down with legal issues surrounding stolen words - but the information leaked to wikileaks was not stolen, and not even the US government, as far as I am aware, are claiming that it was. Where are you getting your information that says it was stolen?


I find it ironic, and very hypocritical that you demand the government take responsibility for what they do, but give a pass to wikileaks because of a painfully transparent anti America agenda

You haven't proven an anti American agenda; you have no idea what wikileaks has actually leaked via their website, since it's hundreds of documents from all over the globe - a lot of which have American sources because they are leaked by American diplomats or some such. What makes you think it is an anti American agenda? Also, as I have already said before, I am not giving wikileaks a pass from responsibility - I think they DO have responsibility - that's why I admire Julian Assange and Wikileaks, it's just that you think they personally hacked and stole the information and should be responsible for theft.

They didn't steal anything - it was leaked to them from others that had that information given to them. You have no proof that anything was stolen.

I'm just popping in to say that all of these arguments/discussions/debates are going nowhere and have gone nowhere. I've gotten bored of reading it, so I'm just gonna stop. No, they're not going anywhere anymore. True enough.

[Blasted Child]

I've already put you in a corner 3 times in this thread alone. I'm not gonna play your little Coolinator game where we go back to every point and explain where you failed because you are too fucking lame to figure it out. So instead I will give you a fresh brand new corner. I know how hard it is for you to keep up so it will be less tedious this way.


I think you're overestimating your ability to put people in corners, Tadao. At least when it comes to verbal arguments. I don't know about cornering people physically, but something tells me you do that much better.

I've looked through the posts you've made here (and god it's not a pretty sight), and the only time you've demanded some sort of response is when you asked for names of the leaks. I gave you a name that time, the most prominent leak so far. Link and all.
Then you kept repeating this request, as if I personally wrote the damned wikileaks and kept all the contacts in some sort of folder. Is that when you cornered me, Tadao? When you kept shouting "I want names!!"?

Oh, let me guess, it's when you wrote "what are you gonna do with all this information?" Then sorry if I didn't reply. This is what transparency is, Tadao, when people get information. What do you do with the news you read? Do you always do something actively?
Well some people do. And then you can support them, when you've received information and know how to cast your vote.
I simply think people should get information. I think that's ultimately a good thing. Totalitarian regimes cover up things and keep their people in the dark. You don't want that.

This is really all I have to say about this. It has nothing to do with being anti-american; if I was anti-american I would think you deserved the same kind of non-transparency they have in China.

Just my two cents.

[Pentegarn]

You haven't tried to explain it, you've just told us that we are naive for not realising it. How will government transparency lead to the collapse of American society and widespread chaos? What are the long term bad effects of having a government answer to its citizens? Oh, and that final sentence in the quote there isn't a statement on what you think, it's a question that you didn't answer.

So, where is your proof that Julian Assange or Wikileaks are hacking into and stealing US military secrets?

What are the sensitive military secrets that Wikileaks has stolen, and why are they so dangerous if people know about them?

How does Wikileaks encourage other people to hack and steal information for them?


:lol What? That is retarded. Please, please, I beg you, since it sounds like there are NUMEROUS examples, could you please provide an example of a communist PR guilt trip designed to hide mindlessness? :lol Not that this has nothing to do with anything, and you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if all you've got are 'typical communist debate technique' insults, but inquiring minds would like to know.




What? :lol I am attacking... how ... how kind you look? What does that mean?

I found them funny. You are not addressing points that have been raised, so I don't think you should expect people to not just stop being serious and make fun of your inane arguments.



This is the first time...



So he didn't hack into government military files and steal information then. So he is not the hacker thief you claimed he was. The possession of stolen goods might be a crime - I'm not down with legal issues surrounding stolen words - but the information leaked to wikileaks was not stolen, and not even the US government, as far as I am aware, are claiming that it was. Where are you getting your information that says it was stolen?



You haven't proven an anti American agenda; you have no idea what wikileaks has actually leaked via their website, since it's hundreds of documents from all over the globe - a lot of which have American sources because they are leaked by American diplomats or some such. What makes you think it is an anti American agenda? Also, as I have already said before, I am not giving wikileaks a pass from responsibility - I think they DO have responsibility - that's why I admire Julian Assange and Wikileaks, it's just that you think they personally hacked and stole the information and should be responsible for theft.

They didn't steal anything - it was leaked to them from others that had that information given to them. You have no proof that anything was stolen.

No, they're not going anywhere anymore. True enough.

1) A while back I pointed to an example article from wikileaks you posted that was both stolen (as all these leaked documents are) and how it effects the military, you ignored it then, and I am not going to repeat myself because you will ignore it now

2) the reason you think BC's childishly talentless cartoon was funny is because he is the only person who has your back

3) regarding examples of your heartless to somkescreen your weak stance, I gave 2 glaring examples, and even repeated them many times (gassing kurds to counter my Iraq transparency example, and your stance that I thought the holocaust should have been hidden which you made not because you honestly believed I thought that, but to make me look heartless so you could draw attention away from my point. Well, either that, or you really were moronic enough to believe that I thought the killing of 6 million people should have been or even could have been hidden. So either I am right about you, or you are a moron)

4) Assange is a cyber terrorist, a holder of documents he knows do not belong to him (a thief if ever there was one despite your counterargument based entirely in semantics) He not only knows they are stolen, he has no qualms about threatening the US with them, has done so before, and continues to do so now. And please, don't try to say "well he is defending himself" he fired the first salvo in this little war, are you telling me the governments have no right to defend themselves?

5) I noticed you ignored my SSA point, a domestic government installation, that has the US primary information item for every US citizen that if it were transparent as you wish so hard for it to be would render hundreds of millions of people naked to identity thieves.

6) You want a break down explained. Honestly I had thought you smart enough to know what could happen long term and were just ignoring it, but since I find I was mistaken about you I will give you one scenario

-Assange releases 250000 US documents, some of which could have military secrets in them, many of which have things that aren't the worlds business, some of which were bad, but nowhere near as bad as what they prevented.

-The world, galvanized by internet outraged, appeals to the UN

-The UN creates sanctions to hurt the US financially, but all it really does is eliminate the upper middle, middle, and lower middle class rendering the country mostly poverty stricken with a 2% of the population unaffected.

-The more zealous, anti american entities of the world decide the US has yet to suffer enough, and with what they now know about the domestic security of the US multiple terrorist cells decide to all attack, lives are lost in the millions, some countries may even find a weakened America a tempting target so they could strike too, which would mean war on US soil

-The US economy collapses, this now means exports of dozens of countries shut down, this also means, that food that used to be shipped to third world countries has also ceased, so now millions of people who rely on US agriculture must starve, and millions who rely on US spending to feed their families are also ruined.

That's just one possible way it could shake out, death, war, and world hunger all to satisfy your desire for sudden total transparency. Personally, I do not think the ends justify the means in that scenario, and would rather not take the chance of it coming to pass. Also I can't help but notice (nod to Tadao for inadvertently reminding me of this) that transparency doesn't seem to stop despot leaders like Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein so what good will it do with countries that are not committing atrocities at the level those leaders have? Countries have had the need for secrets because petty people have made it so. You can't change human nature and trying to force it to change is a pointless and dangerous endeavor.

[Zhukov]

1) A while back I pointed to an example article from wikileaks you posted that was both stolen (as all these leaked documents are) and how it effects the military, you ignored it then, and I am not going to repeat myself because you will ignore it now

Thanks for telling me what page that is on, but I think I found what you are talking about:


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.

Funnily enough, I didn't just ignore it then; here is my response:

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.

If you are referring to me not responding to the threat that leak poses to the military, ok. I don't consider it breaking news that the US spends money on public relations to drum up support for war, you agree with me, so why is it's revelation so dangerous? Why do people not deserve to know for sure that it happens? Why does it 'compromise' the strategy if people know that there is a strategy? I'm asking you why it's so dangerous that this information is leaked.

I also don't think you can just say that a document is stolen; you have to tell me how you know it's stolen. Saying "they are all stolen" isn't sufficient. The documents are uploaded anonymously to Wikileaks, the only person accused of ANYTHING by the US government is Bradley Manning, who didn't steal anything, but has been charged with 'unauthorized use and disclosure of U.S. classified information', so he was entrusted with information that he then passed on. No stealing.

Seriously. Nothing has been proven to be stolen. Even if there was stolen information, it doesn't change what the information says, and it doesn't change a people's right to know what their government is up to.

2) the reason you think BC's childishly talentless cartoon was funny is because he is the only person who has your back

Nah, they were funny. It was a big see-through sheet attacking people. Haha.

3) regarding examples of your heartless to somkescreen your weak stance, I gave 2 glaring examples, and even repeated them many times (gassing kurds to counter my Iraq transparency example, and your stance that I thought the holocaust should have been hidden which you made not because you honestly believed I thought that, but to make me look heartless so you could draw attention away from my point. Well, either that, or you really were moronic enough to believe that I thought the killing of 6 million people should have been or even could have been hidden. So either I am right about you, or you are a moron)

If you don't think the holocaust should have been kept classified, then why? Why should that have been uncovered? The government deemed it classified.

Pentegarn, your arguments led to me asking you questions based on what I considered the next step in your logic. You stated that governments should have the right to keep things classified if they deem it necessary, so I followed on and asked you if a government (Nazis) had the right to keep things (holocaust) classified that they deemed necessary. I didn't ask you if it was ok to kill 6 million Jews, I didn't ask you if you hated Jews and were a Nazi and whether or not you would commit genocide, I asked you if THAT was an exception from your statement, or if it didn't come into it at all, or whatever. I asked you what you thought and you considered it an 'ad hominem' attack. Same with Saddam; he was a government, he decided that gassing people and torturing people should be kept classified, and I asked you if he had that right and whether it should be respected. MY point is this: if a government decides what should be secret and what shouldn't, they will inevitably cover up their mistakes and crimes under the cover of 'it's classified', the numerous gaffes and crimes shown on wikileaks backs this up.

You also thought that the Watergate scandal was ok to be out in the open, but only because it was released by a respectable newspaper, and not a website. I don't see how this fits.


4) Assange is a cyber terrorist, a holder of documents he knows do not belong to him (a thief if ever there was one despite your counterargument based entirely in semantics) He not only knows they are stolen, he has no qualms about threatening the US with them, has done so before, and continues to do so now. And please, don't try to say "well he is defending himself" he fired the first salvo in this little war, are you telling me the governments have no right to defend themselves?

Again, you are just stating he's a 'cyber terrorist' who steals or has other people steal things for him without any substance. Still, even if it was all true (which you have not proven) what difference does it make? Do people not deserve to know what their governments are up to?

5) I noticed you ignored my SSA point, a domestic government installation, that has the US primary information item for every US citizen that if it were transparent as you wish so hard for it to be would render hundreds of millions of people naked to identity thieves.

Your social security information and other private stuff like that isn't really relevant to this discu... uh, argument. Nobody is calling for that to be 'transparent', Julian Assange is not releasing credit card numbers on Wikileaks. It's not like a society can't choose what it wants to be known as public knowledge and what should remain private. Geez. I didn't ignore you when you pointed that out, I stated that Blasted Child already addressed it by saying what I have said just then, but more thoroughly.


6) You want a break down explained. Honestly I had thought you smart enough to know what could happen long term and were just ignoring it, but since I find I was mistaken about you I will give you one scenario

-Assange releases 250000 US documents, some of which could have military secrets in them, many of which have things that aren't the worlds business, some of which were bad, but nowhere near as bad as what they prevented.

What are these military secrets, and what does their secrecy prevent?

-The world, galvanized by internet outraged, appeals to the UN


-The UN creates sanctions to hurt the US financially, but all it really does is eliminate the upper middle, middle, and lower middle class rendering the country mostly poverty stricken with a 2% of the population unaffected.

- Also, the UN passes a law that says every first born US citizen needs to be genetically engineered to only have one working eye. This is called 'The Mark'.

-The more zealous, anti american entities of the world decide the US has yet to suffer enough, and with what they now know about the domestic security of the US multiple terrorist cells decide to all attack, lives are lost in the millions, some countries may even find a weakened America a tempting target so they could strike too, which would mean war on US soil

- America's common enemies enter a triad of hatred, lead by the Neo-Soviets, China and The Greater Iranian Sphere of Prosperity.

-The US economy collapses, this now means exports of dozens of countries shut down, this also means, that food that used to be shipped to third world countries has also ceased, so now millions of people who rely on US agriculture must starve, and millions who rely on US spending to feed their families are also ruined.

-Julian Assange accends to throne of Emperor of Mankind. The 350 year war against America begins.

That's just one possible way it could shake out, death, war, and world hunger all to satisfy your desire for sudden total transparency. Personally, I do not think the ends justify the means in that scenario, and would rather not take the chance of it coming to pass.

You're nuts. That is complete speculation and 'worst case scenario', thrown in with a little ignorance and a dash of patriotic militia well-wishing. I've got nothing to say except that. :lol Here is my "scenario", which I think is a little more realistic:

Documents are released, people want their government to start being more honest, nothing much else happens worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things.

If there was transparency in the government then maybe, just maybe, they would stop, or cut down on, institutionalised abuse, crime, environmental destruction, and economic lies, because an angry public would protest and not allow it. Maybe.


Also I can't help but notice (nod to Tadao for inadvertently reminding me of this) that transparency doesn't seem to stop despot leaders like Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein so what good will it do with countries that are not committing atrocities at the level those leaders have? Countries have had the need for secrets because petty people have made it so. You can't change human nature and trying to force it to change is a pointless and dangerous endeavor.

Seriously, don't drag the fallacy of 'human nature' into this otherwise ... ok, it's idiotic already, just don't make it worse. YOU CAN'T CHANGE HUMAN NATURE WE ARE HARD WIRED TO GREED. Anyway, I think you will find that the people of North Korea by and large believe that their beloved leader is a god, a benevolent ruler of a utopia surrounded by post apocalyptic hell holes infested with Ameri-Demons. Kim Jong-Il and Sadaam are hardly the poster boys of an honest government; their citizens didn't know what they were up to. If you want to know why 'The World' doesn't fix the problems in North Korea, even though it knowns about them, it's because it doesn't give a shit about the people, and only cares about the status quo. This is also why your scenario of unadulterated fiction would not happen; the UN would not place sanctions on the USA.


/end typical communist debate techniques.

[kahljorn]

ALRIGHT I DIDNT READ MOST OF THIS PAGE BUT HERES WHAT IM RESPONDING TO:

I'm not down with legal issues surrounding stolen words - but the information leaked to wikileaks was not stolen, and not even the US government, as far as I am aware, are claiming that it was.
IT WAS STOLEN BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION IT DOESNT MEAN THAT THEY CAN JUST SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY. HERES SOME eXAMPleS:

SO YOUR BOSS GIVES YOU A COMPANY CAR TO DRIVe AROUND. OH I GUESS THAT CARS YOURS NOW SO YOU CAN GO SELL IT TO A USED CAR DEALERSHIP RIGHT?
NOPE.

OKAY SO YOU WORK AT A DESK AT WORK, RIGHT? SO THAT DESKS YOURS ISNT IT? SO WHEN YOU LEAVE YOU GET TO TAKE IT WITH YOU AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANt WITH IT RIGHT?
OH NO SORRY.

DO WE NEED ANY MORE EXAMPLES OF STUFF WHEN KNOWLEdge 'beloNgS" TO SOMEBODY BUT ITS STiLL ILLEgAL to Give it to SOMEBODY ELSE? MAYBE LIKE INSIDE TRADING? HOW BOUT THAT ONE? WOULDNT BE SURPRISED IF SOME OF THE STUFF ON WIKILEAKS SUPPORtED INSIDE TRADINg.
ALSO ISNT INSIDE TRADING JUST ANOTHER FORM OF "TRANSPARENCY?" YET ITS AGAINST THE LAW! HOW STRANge

OH HERES ANOthER GOOD ONE. YOU WORK IN A BANK AND HAVE BEEN GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY OVER SEVERAL PERSONS BANK ACCOUNTS. WELL, YOU CAN JUST GO SELL ALL OF tHAT INFORMATiON BECAUSE it WAS GIVEN TO YOU! ALSO YOU CAN WITHDRAWAL AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU LIKE! SERIOUSLY!

PSYCHOLOgiSTS ARE GIvEN INFORMATION BY thEIR PATIENTS AND Yet IF tHEY WENT AROUND GIving iT TO PEOPLE WHAT WOULD THAT BE?
A BETRAYAL OF CONFIDENTIALITy. WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW.


ARENT SOME GOVERNMENT THINGS CONFIDENTIAL AND "tOP SECRETS." SORRY But itS A CRIME TO DISCLOSE SUCH KNOWLEDGE. MILITARY PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCLOSE DETAILS ABOU tHEIR GOvERNMENT. ITS CALLED SEDITION AND IS A CRIME. FUCK JUST SAYIng SOMETHINg BAD ABOUT YOUR COUntRY WHILE YOURe WeARING YOUR UNIFORM CAN GET YOU IN tROUBLE SOMEtiMES.

[kahljorn]

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.

Here's a definition of ESPIONAGE that i found:
Black's Law Dictionary (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Black%27s_Law_Dictionary) (1990) defines espionage as: "...gathering, transmitting, or losing...information related to the national defense (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Defense_(military))".

Sounds like he does all of that :lol

ALSO you can't technically "STEAL" information/ideas anyway, so most of your arguments regarding it being "Stolen" are irrelevant. "Unlawful reproduction" or transmission would be more appropriate, i guess. So just replace all of those terms with stolen and it should be AOK. The only way you can really "Steal" information is if you use it first, claim it was yours and/or get the benefits.

[Colonel Flagg]

[a whole bunch of examples showing how documents given to employees are not "theirs" to "leak"]

As an individual who deals in sensitive information on a daily basis for private industry, I'm gonna have to side with Kahl on this one.

I know I would be prosecuted if I leaked my company's sensitive information. Not to mention fired for cause.

[kahljorn]

but you didnt actually STEAL the information ;)

[kahljorn]

OoPS MY BROWSER FUCKED UP

[Colonel Flagg]

but you didnt actually STEAL the information ;)

No. No, I did not.

[Dimnos]

What if I worked for Grumman and was working on a top secret plane for the military and took part of the design and posted it on a billboard on the side of the highway. Is the guy who owns the company that owns that billboard responsible? Or am I the one responsible because Im the one that broke confidentiality?

You want to address cause and effect but dont want to look at the effect of violating the fist amendment. No matter how you slice it Assange and Wikileaks are part of the press and thus protected. If you dont want this kind of thing going on you need seal your leaks. You dont want your thoughts and ideas about the rest of the world published for the rest of the world to read? DONT PUT IT IN A FUCKING EMAIL JACKASS. :dunce

[kahljorn]

What if I worked for Grumman and was working on a top secret plane for the military and took part of the design and posted it on a billboard on the side of the highway. Is the guy who owns the company that owns that billboard responsible? Or am I the one responsible because Im the one that broke confidentiality?



VERY NICE. But what about when you have a billboard labeled, "BILLBOARD FOR POSTING TOP SECRET PLANE PLANS FROM THE MILITARY AND BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY" then you have created an environment in which posting these top secret plane plans is encouraged and provides an avenue for them to be taken advantage of. I also think the fact that you are looking for that sort of information makes you "responsible" in a way...
Torrent sites don't actually steal the information themselves and that is why they've been able to get away with it for so long (IN PLACeS LIKe SWedEN INTERESTINGLY WITH ALL THEIR TRANSPARENCIES IT SOMEHOW MAKES IT EASIER TO GET AWAY WITH "PROVIDING A RESOURCE AND OUTLET FOR HACKErS/INFORMATIONTHIEVES." But now more and more of these sites are coming under scrutiny and have had certain rules placed upon them due to these problems.

Furthermore, what if the billboard owner refuses to take them down cause its protected by freedom of speech/press/information? There's responsibility there right?

[The Leader]

the reason you think BC's childishly talentless cartoon was funny is because he is the only person who has your back
I thought that they were funny. :(

[Dimnos]

The billboard analogy was more to accentuate the idea that he who breaks confidentiality is responsible. In the actual case of posting on a billboard Im spending money for that space. As long as Im paying the rent why would the owner take it down? He is just conducting business. He nor I are breaking the law. Unless I did in fact sign a confidentiality agreement. Then I and I alone am in breach of contract.

As far as encouraging the behavior... There is nothing illegal about that either. If on that same billboard I posted a sign that reads "No cops for 10 miles. GUN IT!" I am encouraging illegal and dangerous behavior but Im not breaking the law. Say I wrote and or published a book that explained how to do illegal activities I still havent broken the law. People who buy and read said book arent breaking the law despite the fact that I am "encouraging" the behavior. Example...

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0962303208

One could argue that Powel indeed encourages people do make bombs and blow shit up. Even if someone did buy this book and did in fact make a bomb using the details inside and then used the bomb to kill their neighbor whos dog just wont shut the fuck up. Who is at fault here? Is it Powel for writing the book in the first place? Is it the publisher who printed the book? Or maybe its Amazon for selling it? No. The only one responsible is the guy who actually made the bomb and used it.

[executioneer]

which is kind of funny, since amazon kicked wikileaks off their webspace. IT'S OK TO SELL BOOKS ON HOW TO BOMB SHIT BUT DONT YOU *DARE* EMBARRASS AMERICA :mad

[kahljorn]

The billboard analogy was more to accentuate the idea that he who breaks confidentiality is responsible. In the actual case of posting on a billboard Im spending money for that space. As long as Im paying the rent why would the owner take it down?

There is now pictures of child pornography on the billboard.

Say I wrote and or published a book that explained how to do illegal activities I still havent broken the law. People who buy and read said book arent breaking the law despite the fact that I am "encouraging" the behavior.

Say you publish a book of child pornography. People who buy the book are now in possession of child pornography.

[kahljorn]

In June 1971, Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg) and Anthony Russo (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Anthony_Russo_(whistleblower)) were charged with a felony (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Felony) under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they lacked legal authority to publish classified documents that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Pentagon_Papers).[19] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-18) The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States) found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial based on irregularities in the government's case.[20] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-19)

feaoihfoieah

yea, so that's the law that makes it illegal to publicize classified information/be seditious. The Espionage Act of 1917

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

I GUESS THIS ARGUMENT IS FINISHED NOW?
AT LEAST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAW?

[Dimnos]

Child pornography is a bit of a different story. Its flat out illegal no matter who has it or where its displayed.

Riots though! :) If I were to write a book (shoot a film or whatever) on how to start a riot there is nothing illegal about it. If I were to write a book saying we are going to riot on this day at this time and this is how we are going to do it... Then yes I am guilty of incitement. For it to be applicable to Assange he would have to get on Wikileaks (or I suppose anywhere really) and say "We are going to hack <government or corporate entity> next Wednesday by way of DoS."

Let me read up on this Espionage Act. BBL.

[kahljorn]

oh yea.. i edited out the part about riots, but i was just bringing that up to point out why that you can't publicize/say whatever you want.

Child pornography is a bit of a different story. Its flat out illegal no matter who has it or where its displayed.

so are guberment secrets that can harm the nation if displayed, apparantly :O

"We are going to hack <government or corporate entity> next Wednesday by way of DoS."

Isn't that what 4chan basically did in response to this? thought i saw guitar woman or someone mention that

SHIELD Act
In response to the actions of Julian Assange and his organization, U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Joe_Lieberman), John Ensign (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/John_Ensign), and Scott Brown (http://www.i-mockery.com/wiki/Scott_Brown) "introduced a bill to amend the Espionage Act in order to facilitate the prosecution of folks like Wikileaks."[31] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-Wittes-30) This legislation, known as the SHIELD Act, "would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence informants."[32] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-31) Critics have noted that "[l]eaking [classified] information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers," and that "Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community."[33] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-Wired-32)

Interesting that they want to modify the law specifically for the Julian Asshinge thing. Does that mean wikileaks leaked the names of US Military and Intelligence informants?

[Dimnos]

so are guberment secrets that can harm the nation if displayed, apparantly :O

This is another point in this whole debate. IS anything he posted really going to harm the nation or its military efforts. Most of what has been released by Wikileaks (I dont say all because I havent read over all 200K+ documents) doesnt pertain any current military actions. They document mistakes and carelessness on the part of the military in events that happened in '09.

So far from what I have been reading about the espionage act this is also what keeps them from being in violation of the espionage act. But more on that later.

Isn't that what 4chan basically did in response to this? thought i saw guitar woman or someone mention that

Yes and by all accounts they are in fact guilty. However unless you can prove that Assange is a member and actually partook in their illegal hacking then he still isnt guilty. Even if they did it "in his name" or whatever.


SHIELD Act
In response to the actions of Julian Assange and his organization, U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/../wiki/Joe_Lieberman), John Ensign (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/../wiki/John_Ensign), and Scott Brown (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/../wiki/Scott_Brown) "introduced a bill to amend the Espionage Act in order to facilitate the prosecution of folks like Wikileaks."[31] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-Wittes-30) This legislation, known as the SHIELD Act, "would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence informants."[32] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-31) Critics have noted that "[l]eaking [classified] information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers," and that "Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community."[33] (http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/#cite_note-Wired-32)Interesting that they want to modify the law specifically for the Julian Asshinge thing. Does that mean wikileaks leaked the names of US Military and Intelligence informants?

I dont exactly follow this quote. :\ At the beginning it sounds like they want to prosecute Wikileaks. Then it switches to talk specifically about military and intelligence informants and releasing their names. I dont know if Wikileaks released actual names of informants but if they have to amend the law to make what Wikileaks did illegal then arent they kind of saying it wasnt illegal before? Ill read up more about this Shield Act while Im reading up on the espionage thing.

[kahljorn]

What they are talking about is making it specifically illegal to publish the names of undercover people and stuff. All of the stuff about leaking information covered by the espionage act was already illegal since it was ennacted in 1917. It's already illegal but this will make it easier to convict them. prolly before with a good lawyer you could get out of it easily.

prolly cause of stuff like this and the Plame case.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

[Dimnos]

Kind of like when Cheney outed Valerie Plame? :oops

[kahljorn]

yea. i think what they are going for is that a lot of these laws are based on intent or something. So while there are laws against it there's nothing to actually protect the individuals who will have their names leaked...

with this its illegal to publicize their names, period. So it will provide a discouragement from publicizing their names at least.

[Pentegarn]

I was going to reply to your tripe Zhukov, but after the beating Khal laid on your post/stance in his replies today I think that would not be very sporting of me

[Tadao]

I think you're overestimating your ability to put people in corners, Tadao. At least when it comes to verbal arguments. I don't know about cornering people physically, but something tells me you do that much better.

I've looked through the posts you've made here (and god it's not a pretty sight), and the only time you've demanded some sort of response is when you asked for names of the leaks. I gave you a name that time, the most prominent leak so far. Link and all.
Then you kept repeating this request, as if I personally wrote the damned wikileaks and kept all the contacts in some sort of folder. Is that when you cornered me, Tadao? When you kept shouting "I want names!!"?

Oh, let me guess, it's when you wrote "what are you gonna do with all this information?" Then sorry if I didn't reply. This is what transparency is, Tadao, when people get information. What do you do with the news you read? Do you always do something actively?
Well some people do. And then you can support them, when you've received information and know how to cast your vote.
I simply think people should get information. I think that's ultimately a good thing. Totalitarian regimes cover up things and keep their people in the dark. You don't want that.

This is really all I have to say about this. It has nothing to do with being anti-american; if I was anti-american I would think you deserved the same kind of non-transparency they have in China.

Just my two cents.

The correct answer is "I was wrong. you never said that". Again we see how you simply ignore the question by trying to change the subject. Pathetic.

[Tadao]

For the record, I'm fine with transparency, what I'm not fine with is allowing small countries with little to no military to be open to black mail. Let me guess. I'm completely wrong and this could never happen. Well I'm not saying that it is happening, I'm saying this is just one of the many horrible things that can happen just so that armchair politicians can read the latest hot gossip and complain by the water cooler about how bad the world is.

Good thing we found out abut all this stuff, now let the change roll over me like a cool mountain breeze on a hot summer night! Ahhhhhhhh refreshing!

I know, you need a better example. Let's say a county like Georgia has done some really illeagal things against Russia in order to prepare themselves against Putin's constant manuvering. Now that people who work withing Georgia's government have a place to reveal these secrets that they themselves were probably a part of as well, and the whole world is so hungry for these secrets that they are willing to protect these whistle blowers, said blower can ask for a lot of stuff or they will give the secrets out. Georgia will pay for sure, they can't afford to be held accountable, but major countries like the U.S. and Russia can just ignore the crime they themselves have committed because no one is going to take them down.

Whatever though, telling you this is gonna prevent this from happening as much as Hilary Clinton is gonna be punished for her crimes against the U.N.

[kahljorn]

i was readin gthis thing earlier and it said that after he announced that he was gonna release some new leaks next month about corrupt individuals in a major bank, that Bank of Americas stock declined and it migt be because they thought the leaks were about bank of america :lol
:INSIdeTRADING

[Tadao]

Wait, he's now pre warning what he is gonna release. This dude is probably as corrupt as the people he is outing.

[Tadao]

I've been too negative about this whole thing, so here is a positive scenario.

All the world leaders are at a table in their secret cave. They are very upset. Apparently all there brilliant strategist and operatives couldn't figure out how to stop there employers collapse. It all started after Blasted Child told his mom that he is outraged and something needed to be done. Magically rocks thrown by rebels could bring down war planes and a molotov cocktail could destroy a tank. Trash can lids could deflect bullets and people were organized enough to forget about their own financial woes and made it to a rally. Indecently, rallies were effective enough to keep peoples emotions high past the next day and new leaders were put into office with the strict warning that Blasted Child would be able to see everything they did and they would be sorry if he catches you being corrupt.

[Tadao]

I know this girl who will have sex with you for money. She's 12 years old. I'll give you her number for 50 dollars and you pay her directly for the sex. I'm not a scumbag though because I'm not the one breaking the law.

[Pentegarn]

You forgot to hope really hard for the best case scenario Tadao, if you do that then bad consequences can't possibly happen no matter what short sighted things one does right?