Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[deepatrax]

However that same CIA operative is specifically prohibited from assassination by the U.S government as all government employees have been since 1976.

President Obama recently declared that a U.S. citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, could be targeted for killing. I'm quite sure that the people who end up doing the killing will be government employees. CIA or Military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

 

[Toontown]

Sorry. But what happened at Abu Ghraib happened in my name, and I did not approve. This person resents this kind of stupidity being carried out, and wants it revealed so it never happens again.

But it is not all about YOU.

Deal with it.

 

[Leif Roar]

What is this? Poli Sci 101...where we discuss issues in a vacuum on non-reality?

I'm speaking to the CURRENT reality of the Wikileaks documents.

No, in the post I originally replied to, you were clearly talking in general terms.

I'm not talking about Joe Q Public walking down the street and finding a paper on the sidewalk detailing the recent NSA briefings.

Which, amusingly enough, is a fair match for Assange's role in this debacle. So, what should we do to Joe Q. Public who's found a secret document on the street and published it on his blog? Kill him?

 

[marplots]

I'm speaking to the CURRENT reality of the Wikileaks documents.

the release of which is illegal under U.S. law for Americans to do. Now, the only people who have access to this classified info are the very people who are covered by this law.

I'm not talking about Joe Q Public walking down the street and finding a paper on the sidewalk detailing the recent NSA briefings.

I occurs to me that I might be breaking U.S. law by reading this material. After all, I went to the site knowing there was secret/classified material on display. When my browser displayed it, it had to make a local copy on my system. I may have secret documents in this computer.

I'm screwed.

 

[deepatrax]

I occurs to me that I might be breaking U.S. law by reading this material. After all, I went to the site knowing there was secret/classified material on display. When my browser displayed it, it had to make a local copy on my system. I may have secret documents in this computer.

I'm screwed.

no worries...there's no law against that.

 

[Roadtoad]

But it is not all about YOU.

Deal with it.

I have. And you're right. It's not about individuals at all. It's about Rule of Law, and what happened at Abu Ghraib was a violation of that.

Deal with it.

 

[deepatrax]

No, in the post I originally replied to, you were clearly talking in general terms.



Which, amusingly enough, is a fair match for Assange's role in this debacle. So, what should we do to Joe Q. Public who's found a secret document on the street and published it on his blog? Kill him?

No...not quite.

See that State Department building over there? Around back, there's an American breaking the law by passing documents out a window to Assange...and then Assange walks over here and sets them down with a sign that reads "LOOK! Secret Documents"

The American is doing something illegal. Assange is facilitating it...and in doing so putting lives at risk. And despite repeated attempts by the U.S. to request that he stop putting these documents out, he continues to do so...risking U.S. National Security interests.

We as a country can't allow that.

 

[stokes234]

All seems pretty embarrassing for the US government.

 

[Leif Roar]

No...not quite.

See that State Department building over there? Around back, there's an American breaking the law by passing documents out a window to Assange...and then Assange walks over here and sets them down with a sign that reads "LOOK! Secret Documents"

The American is doing something illegal. Assange is facilitating it...and in doing so putting lives at risk. And despite repeated attempts by the U.S. to request that he stop putting these documents out, he continues to do so...risking U.S. National Security interests.

We as a country can't allow that.

Funnily enough, you have allowed that. American newspapers have a long, and some would even say proud, tradition of publishing classified information that's embarassing and even damaging to the US government -- and yet the editors and journalists of said newspapers have remained woefully unpersecuted and unassassinated. You'd almost think you lived in an enlightened democracy or something.

Heck, even the government itself has gotten in on the act, and is almost routinely leaking classified information to the press in order to facilitate advantageous coverage and good working relations with journalists.

 

[Toontown]

I have. And you're right. It's not about individuals at all. It's about Rule of Law, and what happened at Abu Ghraib was a violation of that.

Deal with it.

Sure, I'll deal with it. Just as soon as you explain why one violation of law abrogates all laws, and somehow gives (YOU) the right to know everything.

Succeed in proving the above, and I will admit that it really is all about (YOU).

 

[Roadtoad]

Sure, I'll deal with it. Just as soon as you explain why one violation of law abrogates all laws, and somehow gives (YOU) the right to know everything.

Succeed in proving the above, and I will admit that it really is all about (YOU).

Nice try, but as I said, it's not all about me. Nor is it about any other single citizen. It's about rule of law. One violation of law does not abrogate all, but repeated violation of law, and most assuredly, perpetual lies supposedly in the name of "security" push us along the path towards that.

It's about our rights as citizens. First.

 

[Ausmerican]

No...not quite.

See that State Department building over there? Around back, there's an American breaking the law by passing documents out a window to Assange...and then Assange walks over here and sets them down with a sign that reads "LOOK! Secret Documents"

The American is doing something illegal. Assange is facilitating it...and in doing so putting lives at risk. And despite repeated attempts by the U.S. to request that he stop putting these documents out, he continues to do so...risking U.S. National Security interests.

We as a country can't allow that.

I cant see how he is facilitating the original illegal action. How is he making it easier for the guy to steal the info?
The "putting lives at risk" is an oft repeated but not so much backed up canard.

In the greater sceme of things I would rather this information finds its way to Assange and is published for everyone to see then simply sold to a (possibly unfriendly) foreign power.

For one thing the publishing by Wikileaks lets the U.S know that the information is out, which may not be the case if a foreign power was buying it. It also can point towards the person that leaked the info in the first place. Again, this is not the case if it was being bought under the table by foreign governments.

In your own post you point out that it is the American that stole the information that did something illegal, theft.
Assange is, at most, guilty of receiving stolen goods.

Yet your solution was prosecute the thief and execute the fence without a trial.

 

[Toontown]

Nice try, but as I said, it's not all about me. Nor is it about any other single citizen. It's about rule of law. One violation of law does not abrogate all, but repeated violation of law, and most assuredly, perpetual lies supposedly in the name of "security" push us along the path towards that.

It's about our rights as citizens. First.

Nice try, you say? Because, as you said, it's not all about you? Nor is it about any other single citizen, you say? It's about rule of law, you say? One violation of law does not abrogate all, but repeated violation of law, and most assuredly, perpetual lies supposedly in the name of "security" push us along the path towards that, you say?

OK...so...where is your conclusion? What is your solution? You've got me guessing here. Surely you're not suggesting that, because Abu Graib happened, the government is no longer entitled to keep secrets or protect information?

Have you ever encountered the admonition, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies?"

Perhaps that is your problem. Perhaps you want to know things you have no right to know. Perhaps you consider yourself entitled to know things no one has ever authorized you to know. Because you intimate that the government is a lot of dirty rotten scoundrels. Which somehow gives (YOU) the right to know everything.

So...how do we know (YOU) are not a dirty rotten scoundrel as well? If we the people let (YOU) know everything, how do we know we're not just screwing the pooch even worse by handing out classified information like candy to a whole monkeyball full of dirty rotten scoundrels.

Sorry, Charlie. I'm afraid you've failed to prove your right to know everything. If I may offer my humble advice, may I suggest that obtaining a security clearance might be a good first step in your quest to know everything?

 

[Blogiston]

Poor chaps, according to the cablegate 'leaked' dispatches not even the Arabs like them...so, boxes all ticked, bunker busters deployed, Arabs on-side, let's do it people! Set SatNav for Tehran.

 

[Ausmerican]

Nice try, you say? Because, as you said, it's not all about you? Nor is it about any other single citizen, you say? It's about rule of law, you say? One violation of law does not abrogate all, but repeated violation of law, and most assuredly, perpetual lies supposedly in the name of "security" push us along the path towards that, you say?

OK...so...where is your conclusion? What is your solution? You've got me guessing here. Surely you're not suggesting that, because Abu Graib happened, the government is no longer entitled to keep secrets or protect information?

Have you ever encountered the admonition, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies?"

Perhaps that is your problem. Perhaps you want to know things you have no right to know. Perhaps you consider yourself entitled to know things no one has ever authorized you to know. Because you intimate that the government is a lot of dirty rotten scoundrels. Which somehow gives (YOU) the right to know everything.

So...how do we know (YOU) are not a dirty rotten scoundrel as well? If we the people let (YOU) know everything, how do we know we're not just screwing the pooch even worse by handing out classified information like candy to a whole monkeyball full of dirty rotten scoundrels.

Sorry, Charlie. I'm afraid you've failed to prove your right to know everything. If I may offer my humble advice, may I suggest that obtaining a security clearance might be a good first step in your quest to know everything?

You know if you quote the whole of Roadtoads post it makes it redundant to then retype every sentence with the words "you say?" tacked on the end.
And despite the almost record setting use of the word you in your response you didnt seem to be actually adressing his post, just using it as a springboard for your rant.

 

[Ysidro]

no worries...there's no law against that.

Oh good, he can't be prosecuted. We can kill him now.

Marplot, please leave your front door unlocked between 2200 and 2300 on December 11th, 2010. If you don't, we will have to come back next year.

 

[AlBell]

All seems pretty embarrassing for the US government.

What I've seen so far is laughable rather than anything else.

 

[Checkmite]

I think the idea that Wikileaks has been publishing documents willy-nilly with no regard for issues of security is contrary to the facts.

I think you are fully, 100% wrong in your thinking. The newest release, which evidently is nothing but a bunch of diplomatic cables and has nothing to do with any civil rights abuses or war crimes, is very clearly intended to do nothing but cause embarrassment and political damage to the US, whether successful in that regard or not.

Wikileaks has not only been publishing documents willy-nilly with no regard for issues of security, it's been doing so with no regard even for the issues of "war crimes" and human rights Assange pretends to be doing all this for, because some 99% of the documents released so far have nothing to do with either. It's patently obvious that Assange merely received a bulk shipment of classified material and is releasing it all for the most part without knowing what's in it, pretty much just hoping there's something juicy in there somewhere. So far he's pretty much fail.

 

[Newtons Bit]

no worries...there's no law against that.

Until the government decides to start copyrighting all of its documents. Then he'd be screwed!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Sorry, Charlie. I'm afraid you've failed to prove your right to know everything. If I may offer my humble advice, may I suggest that obtaining a security clearance might be a good first step in your quest to know everything?

Ask your fellow imperialists. Might makes right. Deal with it. Nobody likes whiners.