| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2010 10:42:15 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
journalists always write stories where they wont name sources, how is this any different?
as i said before, take issue with the people that are leaking the info, not the ones making it public. |
That is probably one of the things I most agree with in this thread. Fact is - we can't legally/morally hold the blonde foreign dude (like description?) accountable. But, as for the leaks within the US military? Yeah... i believe he should be held to the highest standard of the law accountable. While we can disagree on whether the pledge of allegiance is indoctrination to American sovereignty, military members must take an oath to uphold the constitution and all its laws - including the UCMJ - which has quite a few nice words to say about treason.
I think giving classified documents to foreign nationals qualifies as that. |
|
|
|
11/30/2010 10:49:50 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The bits of information I have seen so far, while embarassing, are not anything that will affect national security... albeit I am not privy to all the information released.
Time will tell,
Ray |
Remember Valerie Plame? A CIA operative outed to score a political point? the liberal press howled that outing her caused real damage to the country and exposed her contacts to reprisal.
Well even with names redacted, complete reports open to other nations security services will now allow those services knowledge of who is reporting to the State Department, who they have been using as sources (perhaps not by name, but the circumstances in the reports will make ferreting out the contacts fairly easy).
I read one report on a Russian oligarch's wedding, it made fascinating reading, almost a sociology paper in itself, describing the host, the guests, the event. Of course Russian intelligence will know what wedding was described, and who the players were. So that is one intelligence operative who will need to be pulled from the field, his contacts will be exposed to some punishment, or perhaps not, but they will no longer be providing information that the State Department had been using.
There are hundreds if not thousands of people who were gathering information that was used to guide American policy that have been exposed and are less usable this week than last. |
|
|
|
11/30/2010 10:53:25 PM · #53 |
| I would not be surprised if Assange turns up dead under mysterious circumstances about the same time the Wikileaks site gets hacked and the servers destroyed. |
|
|
|
11/30/2010 10:54:37 PM · #54 |
Well, as one foreign leader told Secretary Clinton yesterday, "Don't worry about it too much -- you should see what we say about you."
DIPLOMAT: n A "civilian soldier" sent abroad to lie for his country. |
|
|
|
11/30/2010 11:08:56 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I would not be surprised if Assange turns up dead under mysterious circumstances about the same time the Wikileaks site gets hacked and the servers destroyed. |
Assuming he has a boatload of information, that would not be a very wise choice to make. Who knows what other wonderful secrets he might have stashed away.
As for the servers, we should worry about our own.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/30/2010 11:10:14 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The bits of information I have seen so far, while embarassing, are not anything that will affect national security... albeit I am not privy to all the information released.
Time will tell,
Ray |
Remember Valerie Plame? A CIA operative outed to score a political point? the liberal press howled that outing her caused real damage to the country and exposed her contacts to reprisal.
Well even with names redacted, complete reports open to other nations security services will now allow those services knowledge of who is reporting to the State Department, who they have been using as sources (perhaps not by name, but the circumstances in the reports will make ferreting out the contacts fairly easy).
I read one report on a Russian oligarch's wedding, it made fascinating reading, almost a sociology paper in itself, describing the host, the guests, the event. Of course Russian intelligence will know what wedding was described, and who the players were. So that is one intelligence operative who will need to be pulled from the field, his contacts will be exposed to some punishment, or perhaps not, but they will no longer be providing information that the State Department had been using.
There are hundreds if not thousands of people who were gathering information that was used to guide American policy that have been exposed and are less usable this week than last. |
I guess we can anticipate an influx of people seeking asylum then huh?
Ray |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 09:14:44 AM · #57 |
This guy is under arrest becuase he didn't wear a condom.
the world has lost its sanity and the case reeks of government conspiracy. I'm sorry, I just don't see the crime.
//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Message edited by author 2010-12-07 09:37:11. |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 09:17:54 AM · #58 |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 09:37:26 AM · #59 |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 09:56:06 AM · #60 |
On a related note, Operation Payback is now backing Wikileaks specifically and has shut down the bank website that closed funds on Assange's defense.
Things just got a bit more interesting... |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 10:02:32 AM · #61 |
He was arrested in London today, and said he'll fight his extradition;
//www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110 |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 10:25:06 AM · #62 |
| i wonder if he will release his doomsday file. |
|
|
|
12/07/2010 03:34:41 PM · #63 |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 12:10:22 PM · #64 |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 12:34:22 PM · #65 |
"only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government"
he is 100% correct. The current media can be easily deceived and controlled by being "fed" information and this guy and his website is scaring the crap out of the governments becuase he can't be controlled.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2010 12:36:57 PM · #66 |
Assange
Is it making "ass" of "ange"?
like, assume...
Making "ass" of "u" and "me" |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 01:07:40 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
"only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government" |
That's true, but it's only being used as an excuse here. Disclosing sites vital to the security of the U.S. and her allies has nothing to do with government deception. It's just reckless sensationalism. Furthermore, Wikileaks isn't necessarily "press" just because it calls itself that. It's a website for a hacker who managed to get his hands on classified documents, and revealing those is illegal. Amazon pulled Wikileaks because they don't own the rights to the content and that alone is enough to invite prosecution. |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 04:47:45 PM · #68 |
Just closed my Mastercard account.
Amazon off my list of online stores.
Any other company bending over to government pressure will be cancelled too.
Paypal is next.
Assange may have gone about it all wrong but we don't need corporations to start acting like governments.
Mastercard had no right to cut Wikileaks off. It's because of government pressure that MC acted as they did.
I shouldn't be surprised as we all know our governments are in bed with corporations. This is proof. |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 05:01:46 PM · #69 |
Might want to check out today's (12/8) episode of Fresh Air:
Originally posted by Program Synopsis:
NYT Reporter Defends Publishing WikiLeaks Cables
Speaking Tuesday on Fox News, Sen. Joe Lieberman suggested that The New York Times should be investigated for publishing leaked diplomatic cables. The New York Times' chief Washington correspondent, David Sanger, responds -- and explains what the documents reveal about foreign diplomacy. |
|
|
|
|
12/08/2010 05:40:25 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Jac:
I shouldn't be surprised as we all know our governments are in bed with corporations. This is proof. |
While you're at it, you should close your Visa account, too. They dropped support for Wikileaks (and AMEX didn't support them to begin with). If efforts to get WL classified as a terrorist organization go through, you'll also need to close all your bank accounts for being "in bed with corporations." Oh, and you surely won't want to use government issued currency. Pretty soon you'll be left with Chuck E. Cheese tokens and Monopoly money.
Mastercard has EVERY right to cut off customers who may be engaged in criminal activities. They are both entitled and obligated by their own membership agreement. When you publish classified lists of infrastructure sites critical to U.S. (and Canadian) security, it becomes crystal clear that your intentions are neither benign nor motivated by government deception. How does revealing such a list keep government in check or serve the interests of the public? It qualifies as providing material support to terrorists just as surely as if you had mailed blueprints of the WTC directly to Al Qaeda. Having your supporters launch class A felony attacks on businesses and blackmailing authorities to avoid prosecution doesn't help, either. If I found out that Mastercard didn't cut off service to a group that clearly helps the bad guys, intentionally or not, THAT'S when I'd consider dropping them. |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 05:48:20 PM · #71 |
I agree with you Shannon, but to be clear, Assange has not been charged with any crime involving wikileaks. It's premature to say what he is doing is illegal (it may be, but it's not obvious). Someone on NPR commented that Assange isn't the one to actually steal the secrets, he's only publishing them. To this individual that seemed to make the case much harder for the government against him.
Could it be MC and Visa cut their business with him because he posted cables where the US went to bat for the companies in Russia? Maybe they didn't like that and in this country you can stop doing business with whomever you want (with a few exceptions).
Message edited by author 2010-12-08 17:51:34. |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 06:09:50 PM · #72 |
Assange didnt steal anything, apparently some American military guy did. But according the espionage act anyone who even looks at this material is subject to charges, that includes you and me..
amazon dropped his site becuase of copyrights? government records and figures are copyrighted material now???
visa and mastercard, and paypal all jumped the gun to kill funding to wikileaks, that's great, they havent even been formally charged, they are being squeezed.
I dont think the US can prosecute this guy. There case will most likely fall apart since the laws governing this kind of behavior arent well defined. So they are pressuring other countries to hold and find him guilty of something.
He's an Australian being charged with rape in Sweden but being held in england. In fact im not even sure its rape, the sex was consensual, he just refused to wear a condom during the act so its being classified as a sex crime. The guy had interpol out to catch him for that, and he's denied bail. That doesn't seem wrong to you???
At this point I dont care if what he's did is defined as illegal, all these governments are in cahoots skirting international laws to get want they want. Silence.
that is wrong. that is scary.
at this point i hope wikileaks prevails and they seem smart enough to do so, becuase what they have isn't detrimental to security, its exposing the corruption in government. what is going on doesnt happen for any other reason.
Message edited by author 2010-12-08 18:11:41. |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 06:31:45 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
amazon dropped his site becuase of copyrights? government records and figures are copyrighted material now??? |
ALL records and communications are subject to copyright just like your photos are.
Originally posted by mike_311:
what they have isn't detrimental to security, its exposing the corruption in government. |
A list of sites vital to the nation's security has nothing whatsoever to do with government corruption.
Message edited by author 2010-12-08 19:00:54. |
|
|
|
12/08/2010 07:04:28 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
ALL records and communications are subject copyright just like your photos are.
|
news reporting is exempt from copyright laws.
Originally posted by scalvert:
A list of sites vital to the nation's security has nothing whatsoever to do with government corruption. |
define vital.
becuase the government says they are vital? if the sites are being used for something that the government is trying to keep from the public it does.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2010 07:18:08 PM · #75 |
| But obviously Mike there is such a thing as a secret and it is also obvious that having a secret isn't always bad. While the potential for abuse is certainly there, it doesn't help to now abuse things in the opposite direction (revealing secrets just because they are secrets with little or no discernment of the impact). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 02:18:40 AM EDT.
