Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[ThunderChunky]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/wikileaks.attack/index.html?hpt=T1

they are releasing countless secret documents and intellectual property of the United States. they are in possession of stolen goods, which is a crime.

they are releasing classified documentation which they have no right to possess or even see. this is a crime.

I don't know if somehow the USA is responsible for the cyber-attack on Wikileaks, but I would not mind it if we were.

there is a legal way to get government documents, even classified ones from the USA. its called the Freedom of Information Act. it does wonders.

however, Wikileaks chooses to go another route. an illegal one.

and it does appear that their agenda may indeed be to harm the United States and our allies.

they are an enemy of the USA.

Then so is every news agency reporting on the leaked info and so is every person that downloads the leaked files from wikileaks.

Wikileaks is good for america and for the world.

 

[Roadtoad]

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?

Had one. Most of the crap I knew wasn't worth a clearance.

And I am not overly interested in knowing everything.

Once more: IT IS NOT ABOUT ME. IT IS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.

 

[Roadtoad]

Then so is every news agency reporting on the leaked info and so is every person that downloads the leaked files from wikileaks.

Wikileaks is good for america and for the world.

We'll see in the long run. Ideally, if this means we have fewer stupid bureaucrats doing stupid bureaucrat things, then we have a shot.

 

[Toontown]

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.

Yes. But I found it humorous. And I think the tactic amply demonstrated the emptiness of Roadtoad's reply. What else was I supposed to do with a list of platitudes leading to no conclusion?

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.

How was I supposed to address his post? He didn't even address his post. So I used it for a springboard.

Might as well get some use out of it.

 

[Toontown]

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.

Keep the platitudes coming. Eventually you might come up with one that isn't a complete non-sequitur, by chance alone.

 

[Toontown]

Had one. Most of the crap I knew wasn't worth a clearance.

Sometimes I think I'm psychic. If I suggest that someone should take up elephant training, they will invariably claim to have been an expert elephant trainer.

Once more: IT IS NOT ABOUT ME. IT IS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.

Oh.

You mean it's not about (you) wanting every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the monkeyball to have access to classified information, because (you) have a case of the ass about Abu Ghraib?

Huh. So Assange gathering and disseminating classified documents is really about THE RULE OF LAW.

Just out of curiosity, what law would that be? It's not that I doubt Assange's impeccable motivations, which can only be pure, since there is no money or politics involved. Just curious about what law his selfless activities are supporting.

 

[Roadtoad]

Sometimes I think I'm psychic. If I suggest that someone should take up elephant training, they will invariably claim to have been an expert elephant trainer.

No, really. It was a Secret clearance, and I needed it because at the time, I was a 71R10, (Info. Spec., Broadcaster) in Germany. About the most important thing that crossed my desk was the daily Operational Message. Not particularly important.

Maybe you should quit hanging out with elephant trainers. Maybe there would be less of a chance of you stepping in elephant turds.

 

[Roadtoad]

Oh.

You mean it's not about (you) wanting every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the monkeyball to have access to classified information, because (you) have a case of the ass about Abu Ghraib?

Huh. So Assange gathering and disseminating classified documents is really about THE RULE OF LAW.

Just out of curiosity, what law would that be? It's not that I doubt Assange's impeccable motivations, which can only be pure, since there is no money or politics involved. Just curious about what law his selfless activities are supporting.

Damn, I wish I had the kind of moral smugness you have.

While you bitch and gripe, you ignore the content of the information that's tended to be released. No, I am not the judge here, but we've tended to be stronger when we know what the hell is going on behind the closed doors. What seems to be coming across is that much of this is classified not because lives are at stake, but because someone's career might be put at risk.

Please note: I say "tends to." We don't know the whole story. We probably won't.

No, I don't think Assange's motives are as pure as the driven snow, or even the driven slush, for that matter. But given what we've seen over the past few years, I'm slightly more willing to trust his motives than I am the occupants of both Capitol Hill and the White House.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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

Qaddafi and a "voluptuous blonde" nurse? That's hilarious. I hope Wikileaks gets hold of other countries diplomatic juice, too, so everyone can see how ridiculous governments are. I can't imagine the US is the only one behaving like this.

 

[MikeMangum]

At the very least, things aren't so black and white. Just disobeying an order doesn't make one necessarily an enemy of the state or a criminal.

Assuming it is a lawful order, disobeying an order does indeed make someone a criminal.

Believe it or not, there are ways to deal with abuses of classification. If someone runs across information that is classified solely to hide violations of the law, we have two intelligence legislative oversight committees that they can approach, each of which has members from the opposition party.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Damn, I wish I had the kind of moral smugness you have.

While you bitch and gripe, you ignore the content of the information that's tended to be released. No, I am not the judge here, but we've tended to be stronger when we know what the hell is going on behind the closed doors. What seems to be coming across is that much of this is classified not because lives are at stake, but because someone's career might be put at risk.

Please note: I say "tends to." We don't know the whole story. We probably won't.

No, I don't think Assange's motives are as pure as the driven snow, or even the driven slush, for that matter. But given what we've seen over the past few years, I'm slightly more willing to trust his motives than I am the occupants of both Capitol Hill and the White House.

That's pretty much how I feel. Since as much as folks like theprestige like to go on about how the government is our elected representatives and therefore whatever they do is obviously what we want them to be doing, its only when we know what the **** is actually going on that we have a chance at making our leaders actually represent our interests, or even know if they are or are not.

 

[Cleon]

Sometimes I think I'm psychic. If I suggest that someone should take up elephant training, they will invariably claim to have been an expert elephant trainer.

Fair warning - politics aside, if you're going to imply that Roadtoad is lying, you'd better pony up some serious evidence.

 

[fuelair]

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

Technically, under current copyright law, no action is legally required to copyright in the US. Copyriught is now legally inherant in the production of any new work. I very much against that - and against a copyright longer than the life of the author - or which is invoked to prevent a work being republished.

 

[Toontown]

No, I don't think Assange's motives are as pure as the driven snow, or even the driven slush, for that matter. But given what we've seen over the past few years, I'm slightly more willing to trust his motives than I am the occupants of both Capitol Hill and the White House.

How is your concern about the occupants of Capitol Hill and the White House addressed by handing out classified documents to every bozo on the monkeyball? One bozo is a turd, so give another turd a pile of classified documents. I just don't see the connection.

 

[Toontown]

Fair warning - politics aside, if you're going to imply that Roadtoad is lying, you'd better pony up some serious evidence.

I don't "imply" that someone is lying. If I think someone is lying and want to call him on it, I'll call him a liar straight up. On occasion I've called them "Filthy, stinking liars". On other occasions I've characterized entire threads as "Dirty little liars telling dirty little lies."

So it's not going to be something implicate, when I call someone a liar.

 

[lionking]

I don't "imply" that someone is lying. If I think someone is lying and want to call him on it, I'll call him a liar straight up. On occasion I've called them "Filthy, stinking liars". On other occasions I've characterized entire threads as "Dirty little liars telling dirty little lies."

So it's not going to be something implicate, when I call someone a liar.

So what were you suggesting then?

 

[Cleon]

I don't "imply" that someone is lying. If I think someone is lying and want to call him on it, I'll call him a liar straight up. On occasion I've called them "Filthy, stinking liars". On other occasions I've characterized entire threads as "Dirty little liars telling dirty little lies."

So it's not going to be something implicate, when I call someone a liar.

Riiiiight.

 

[Toontown]

So what were you suggesting then?

What does your question suggest?

I wasn't "suggesting" anything. I was commenting on the coincidence. I quipped that Roadtoad should seek a security clearance to satisfy his thirst for classified knowledge, and he just happened to have had one.

Don't worry your pretty little head about it. I'll take his word for it. A low level security clearance is not that rare. It is not a claim that requires proof. It doesn't violate Occam's razor.

I would have gotten one myself, but I was too honest. I admitted that I had once smoked pot when asked.

 

[Polaris]

Qaddafi and a "voluptuous blonde" nurse? That's hilarious. I hope Wikileaks gets hold of other countries diplomatic juice, too, so everyone can see how ridiculous governments are. I can't imagine the US is the only one behaving like this.

Somehow I doubt we'll see documents on wikileaks from countries that will pop him in his sleep. Assange only does this because he doesn't really have anything to fear.

 

[Cleon]

Somehow I doubt we'll see documents on wikileaks from countries that will pop him in his sleep. Assange only does this because he doesn't really have anything to fear.

You really think Iran is above that sort of thing? Me, I wouldn't put it past them.