Wikileaks poll

[Childlike Empress]

Aren't you an ardent supporter of Russia?

How does it feel to run out of tools, Pardalis?

WikiRebels - recent in-depth english language documentary about WikiLeaks by swedish public television

 

[JihadJane]

So you are saying that the Government should release all their secrsts so that the general public can decide what they shouldn't have released?

Am I?

How is that supposed to work?

Your premise is faulty.

 

[Pardalis]

How does it feel to run out of tools, Pardalis?

Your response is another youtube video of your idol? This is the birth of another cult of personality?

It is well known that you often defend Russia, Venezuela and Iran on these boards. I guess these countries have according to you better quality democracies.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Am I?

I don't know that's why I was asking.

Your premise is faulty.

Well perhaps if you actually made yourself clearer I wouldn't have to guess.

So who exactly should decide what the Government can and can't keep secret? And how are they supposed to do so? Try answering in a nice clear manner.

 

[Oliver]

So who exactly should decide what the Government can and can't keep secret? And how are they supposed to do so? Try answering in a nice clear manner.

The Government should decide whether something has to be secret - but at the same time it should be a duty to report any abusive or even illegal behavior of the Government. Plus the Government should not act like a bunch of whiny crybabies if something gets published, and especially they should not try to censor and intimidate.

Obama said it quite well before he turned to the dark side of the Force ...

 

[BenBurch]

For those who don't think Wikileaks gets First Amendment protection, how do they distinguish it from, for example, the NY Times publishing the same information?

If they assisted in the theft, it becomes espionage and not just a free press. It stops being reporting when you create the news yourself. And that theory is what the DOJ is supposed to be investigating.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If they assisted in the theft, it becomes espionage and not just a free press. It stops being reporting when you create the news yourself. And that theory is what the DOJ is supposed to be investigating.

The question is whether a foriegn national OUTSIDE of a country can be charged with a crime for helping someone inside the country commit one. Does a country's jurisdiction pass beyond its borders to include those who are in communication with someone inside the borders.

If the US goes with "Yes" then the ramifications are huge internationally.

That would mean that all CIA, KGB, and other intelligence agents would become possible targets for legal action against them for conducting Intelligence work, even if they are not in the country they were spying on. It could lead to someone having a conversation with a person in China and facing the Chinese Legal system for saying something illegal in China. The presedent the US would be setting Internationally would be major, and I don't believe it would sit well with anyone.

 

[Oliver]

If they assisted in the theft, it becomes espionage and not just a free press. It stops being reporting when you create the news yourself. And that theory is what the DOJ is supposed to be investigating.

It's a theory and the DOJ can turn it up and down as long as they want to, as they tried all the time since the Iraq diaries were also published via Mannings upload of secret US data to Wikileaks.

It's a waste of time especially in light of Wikileaks asking the US Government to review the cables before publishing them to let them decide whether to censor/blacken critical cables and names themselves - ... plus Robert Gates public statement that the Cables did no harm to the US.

Good luck in court and on the international diplomatic stage with that kind of ridiculous outset.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course not. It's 2010, the last even remotely serious enemy you could possibly sell disappeared around twenty years ago.

The current threats may not be as existential today as they were in D-Day. But we have enemies who are trying to kill us. We have enemies that ARE killing us, and our allies. And to fight them effectively, we still need to keep secrets. Exposing those secrets can get people killed. There's no indication that Spiegel actually cares about that reality. You claim that Spiegel wouldn't want Operation Overlord exposed, but you can't actually base that claim on anything they said. Or, for that matter, anything YOU have said.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You claim that Spiegel wouldn't want Operation Overlord exposed, but you can't actually base that claim on anything they said. Or, for that matter, anything YOU have said.

Of course not. You brought that completely unrelated stuff up in the first place.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And until your "defense" spending sinks below that of ALL OTHER nations COMBINED, spare me your whiny "enemy" nonsense.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If they assisted in the theft, it becomes espionage and not just a free press.

But they didn't assist in the theft.

It stops being reporting when you create the news yourself. And that theory is what the DOJ is supposed to be investigating.

Really? Everything I heard is that Manning hacked the documents some time before he turned them over to Wikileaks, and that Assange had no contact with him prior to the case. Pretty difficult to consider Wikileaks a conspirator.

So, if those facts don't pan out, and the story is as it's been reported (that Manning stole the documents and then contacted Wikileaks after the fact), how do you distinguish Wikileaks from the NY Times (and the UK Guardian and whatever other news outlets were involved)?

 

[KDLarsen]

It's a waste of time especially in light of Wikileaks asking the US Government to review the cables before publishing them to let them decide whether to censor/blacken critical cables and names themselves - ... plus Robert Gates public statement that the Cables did no harm to the US.

Ah yes, the comedy piece when WikiLeaks wanted Pentagon to help them release the stolen documents faster. Were you seriously expecting Pentagon to take them up on the offer?

As for Gates' remarks, again, what were you expecting him to do? Get down on his knees, crying for Assange and his cronies to not release the documents? And if they weren't damaging to the US, what was Hillary Clinton doing on the phone to various world leaders in the days leading up the release? Telling them to stop by for coffee some time?

 

[applecorped]

Damn those Usans spending all that money to "defend" themselves. "They" should just "admit" that it's all "propaganda" and say they are "sorry" for all their past "transgressions".

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course not. You brought that completely unrelated stuff up in the first place.

It's not unrelated. Spiegel made a categorical statement that leaking was good for democracy. When I brought up an example of a case where leaking would most definitely NOT have been good for a democracy, you basically claimed (without any justification) that Spiegel didn't really mean what you just quoted them saying.

 

[Ziggurat]

And until your "defense" spending sinks below that of ALL OTHER nations COMBINED, spare me your whiny "enemy" nonsense.

North Korea spends less money on their military than South Korea does.

I guess South Korea has nothing to worry about.

Now I know where you get the "childlike" part of your name.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Now I know where you get the "childlike" part of your name.

Wow buddy, you're a true pioneer.

edit: it's almost too obvious to mention, but for the shrinking part of the audience in need:

Spiegel made a categorical statement that leaking was good for democracy.

No. Even the few sentences i quoted expose this nonsense. Try to read the article.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow buddy, you're a true pioneer.

And you're a true humanitarian.

 

[Oliver]

Ah yes, the comedy piece when WikiLeaks wanted Pentagon to help them release the stolen documents faster. Were you seriously expecting Pentagon to take them up on the offer?

As for Gates' remarks, again, what were you expecting him to do? Get down on his knees, crying for Assange and his cronies to not release the documents? And if they weren't damaging to the US, what was Hillary Clinton doing on the phone to various world leaders in the days leading up the release? Telling them to stop by for coffee some time?

I did not expect anything from the Pentagon and Mr. Gates. All I tell you is that with those facts in place the Government could as well try to freeze hell over by trying to persecute Assange and/or Wikileaks.

And given Obama's orders for a more transparent Government, it's even more ridiculous.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

 

[JihadJane]

Damn those Usans spending all that money to "defend" themselves. "They" should just "admit" that it's all "propaganda" and say they are "sorry" for all their past "transgressions".

Fair enough, but I think they should be allowed to maintain a defensive armed force, nevertheless, in the unlikely event that someone decides to invade the USA.

Just no more foreign military/economic hitman adventures.