Wikileaks

Stender wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

I think Wikileaks is a good thing, even if it of course is stating the obvious, things most of us already know. The more it gets out in the open , the better. Just look at the way governments and the money people behind our puppet politicians reacts to it, doesn`t that tell that they are a bit shaken by Wikileaks?
I dont understand why there is so much focus here on the man fronting Wikileaks, he`s of no importance but people seems to either praise or hate Assange, that is just pointless to me. Maybe he put it a bit on him self by acting like some mysterious pop star celebrity?
Or maybe acting like that is nessecery to get attention in the media today?
The argument that he should be charged because the documents are stolen, just falls flat IMO. Is it ok for our governments to screw the people, as long as we don`t know about it?
If someone leakes documents that could prevent say a terror attack, would you through that someone in jail just because the documents was stolen?
As for censorship, yeah it blows in most caces but not always IMO. I think it is correct that there are laws and censorship when it comes to certain isms, racism, nazism and Huey Lewis should also be censored from any radio near me

There is a fair and ordered way to FOIA documents without having to steal them and publish without approval. Assange put lives in danger and I think he ought to be held responsible for it. The amusing thing is now that the leaks are happening to him - he is complaining....

I think that crooked figurehead politicians put their OWN lifes in danger when they lie...not to mention everyone elses. If our govt. was transparent than "terrorist slanderers" like assange would have nothing to share. Its really realy sad to me that people demonize assange for "stealing" information but they are cool with thousands of american deaths (and counting) in a bullsh!t war over oil. Dosnt make any sense.

and FOIA the docs to expose the crooked politicians. Stealing because you think someone is crooked doesnt make it anymore right that the politicians trying to cover it up.

Are people cool with people dying in war? I am not but I see millions liberated and given the chance to finally come out from under brutal dictators and try to have a life. I see that as a worthy cause.

exact33 wrote:

Stender wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

I think Wikileaks is a good thing, even if it of course is stating the obvious, things most of us already know. The more it gets out in the open , the better. Just look at the way governments and the money people behind our puppet politicians reacts to it, doesn`t that tell that they are a bit shaken by Wikileaks?
I dont understand why there is so much focus here on the man fronting Wikileaks, he`s of no importance but people seems to either praise or hate Assange, that is just pointless to me. Maybe he put it a bit on him self by acting like some mysterious pop star celebrity?
Or maybe acting like that is nessecery to get attention in the media today?
The argument that he should be charged because the documents are stolen, just falls flat IMO. Is it ok for our governments to screw the people, as long as we don`t know about it?
If someone leakes documents that could prevent say a terror attack, would you through that someone in jail just because the documents was stolen?
As for censorship, yeah it blows in most caces but not always IMO. I think it is correct that there are laws and censorship when it comes to certain isms, racism, nazism and Huey Lewis should also be censored from any radio near me

There is a fair and ordered way to FOIA documents without having to steal them and publish without approval. Assange put lives in danger and I think he ought to be held responsible for it. The amusing thing is now that the leaks are happening to him - he is complaining....

I think that crooked figurehead politicians put their OWN lifes in danger when they lie...not to mention everyone elses. If our govt. was transparent than "terrorist slanderers" like assange would have nothing to share. Its really realy sad to me that people demonize assange for "stealing" information but they are cool with thousands of american deaths (and counting) in a bullsh!t war over oil. Dosnt make any sense.

and FOIA the docs to expose the crooked politicians. Stealing because you think someone is crooked doesnt make it anymore right that the politicians trying to cover it up.

Are people cool with people dying in war? I am not but I see millions liberated and given the chance to finally come out from under brutal dictators and try to have a life. I see that as a worthy cause.

I dont know the legal nuances of FOIA docs, but I think its silly to expect to win by playing by the rules with investigation methods when the politicians obviously are not.

And as far as the current war goes....maybe? but is that really our responsibility when our own country has a failing economy with like 10% unemployment or whatever? ( P.S it shouldnt be our responsiblity even if our economy was booming)...and thats if there was no question that we were oversees just for the pure goodness of our hearts...which if you pay any attention to how our govt. officials respect our needs and concerns is pretty laughable if you ask me.....they just like blowing up little brown people lets face it.


I love you alex, I just disagree bro.

Assange should be charged with espionage and tried in the States, this Manning doofus that stole the information and bragged about it should be tried for treason and shot immediately upon being convicted. If what he did isn't treason then nothing is. Sorry to be such a hardliner on this subject but it's how I feel, I have two brothers in the military.

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This has turned into a pretty cool debate. I see everyones side.

Another good thread that has remained civil.

Here is a thought

What if dude is a mere scapegoat ? Part of a ploy to place more regulation and control on the internet.

AND.............If something is so "secret" .....why document it ? Guess that's the only way a "secret" is worth a fistfull of $ or an offshore account collecting divedends.

James B. wrote:

Here is a thought

What if dude is a mere scapegoat ? Part of a ploy to place more regulation and control on the internet.

AND.............If something is so "secret" .....why document it ? Guess that's the only way a "secret" is worth a fistfull of $ or an offshore account collecting divedends.

its crossed my mind.

James B. wrote:

Here is a thought

What if dude is a mere scapegoat ? Part of a ploy to place more regulation and control on the internet.

AND.............If something is so "secret" .....why document it ? Guess that's the only way a "secret" is worth a fistfull of $ or an offshore account collecting divedends.

Well THe FCC just took a giant step forward on internet regulation through net neutrality. They are also going to be regulating apps.

SlaytanicPOWER wrote:

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This is why I think Assange should be prosecuted. If someone engages in behavior that knowingly causes others to die, there should be punishment.

I agree that publishing Hilary's antics regarding other world leaders isnt harmful but there are secrets the state has a right to keep and violating that should be a punishable offence.

I think wikileaks provides good debut on what secrets goverments are allowed to keep from its people, especially if its an elected goverment choose by the people for the people.

It is a serious subject that needs a better spokesperson than Assange who IMO devalues the debut and is not someone who can be taken seriously and who's motives are suspect, and seems more interested in fame then truth.

[quote="exact33"]

SlaytanicPOWER wrote:

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This is why I think Assange should be prosecuted. If someone engages in behavior that knowingly causes others to die, there should be punishment.

So being at war is not behaviour that knowingly causes others to die?
You are aware of the fact that there are people on this planet that does not share your opinion that our warfare in Afganistan and Iraq is justified..

Stender wrote:

James B. wrote:

Here is a thought

What if dude is a mere scapegoat ? Part of a ploy to place more regulation and control on the internet.

AND.............If something is so "secret" .....why document it ? Guess that's the only way a "secret" is worth a fistfull of $ or an offshore account collecting divedends.

its crossed my mind.

Mine too! I told this to my sis the other day, and she said I think about things too much, ha! I told her he's probably placed by the government to create a scenario to take more control of our rights on the internet, and she gave me one of these

exact33 wrote:

James B. wrote:

Here is a thought

What if dude is a mere scapegoat ? Part of a ploy to place more regulation and control on the internet.

AND.............If something is so "secret" .....why document it ? Guess that's the only way a "secret" is worth a fistfull of $ or an offshore account collecting divedends.

Well THe FCC just took a giant step forward on internet regulation through net neutrality. They are also going to be regulating apps.

That whole "net neutrality" rule is a joke and just a way for the government to control the internet. This isn't China!!!!!! People will find a way to check out websites that are blocked.

Olafsto wrote:

exact33 wrote:

SlaytanicPOWER wrote:

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This is why I think Assange should be prosecuted. If someone engages in behavior that knowingly causes others to die, there should be punishment.

So being at war is not behaviour that knowingly causes others to die?
You are aware of the fact that there are people on this planet that does not share your opinion that our warfare in Afganistan and Iraq is justified..

so if you dont think the war is justified its ok to publish the names of people that can lead to them being killed?

exact33 wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

exact33 wrote:

SlaytanicPOWER wrote:

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This is why I think Assange should be prosecuted. If someone engages in behavior that knowingly causes others to die, there should be punishment.

So being at war is not behaviour that knowingly causes others to die?
You are aware of the fact that there are people on this planet that does not share your opinion that our warfare in Afganistan and Iraq is justified..

so if you dont think the war is justified its ok to publish the names of people that can lead to them being killed?

No, but soldiers at war kill and get killed all the time don`t they? I doubt that Assange has much effect on that. It would be a lot different if something they published led to the killing of innocent civilians.

Olafsto wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

exact33 wrote:

SlaytanicPOWER wrote:

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This is why I think Assange should be prosecuted. If someone engages in behavior that knowingly causes others to die, there should be punishment.

So being at war is not behaviour that knowingly causes others to die?
You are aware of the fact that there are people on this planet that does not share your opinion that our warfare in Afganistan and Iraq is justified..

so if you dont think the war is justified its ok to publish the names of people that can lead to them being killed?

No, but soldiers at war kill and get killed all the time don`t they? I doubt that Assange has much effect on that. It would be a lot different if something they published led to the killing of innocent civilians.

Read the documents. Those are not soldiers names he published. He published the names of civilians cooperating with various intelligence agencies and the names of people infiltrating the terrorist organizations. Do you consider those people to be combatants?

exact33 wrote:

SlaytanicPOWER wrote:

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This is why I think Assange should be prosecuted. If someone engages in behavior that knowingly causes others to die, there should be punishment.

i hope youre anti-war then, otherwise it all seems a little arbitrary. i mean, the only thing separating murder (or otherwise contributing to the deaths of people) from war is government recognition, and the only thing most fundamentally required for a government in the world today is a group of people agreeing that one exists in some formal capacity. i dont think it should be up to some random people and their local, national, or global agenda whether or not the killing going on, be it in my backyard or a continent away, should be considered unlawful or immoral.

if wikileaks somehow contributes to military or civilian casualties, i think we should also keep in mind how military secrecy has contributed, and will continue to contribute to military and civilian casualties. advisers and officers and all the men staring down barrels make life and death decisions every day, i think they should be equally scrutinized, but theyre generally not. i mean, sure, there are incidents that make the news, but war in general continues on. war is bloody and dead soldiers and civilians become expected news.

as for the issue in general.....i believe in the responsible, respectful freedom of information. im anti-government secrecy, but im also anti-government, so its not too messy a deal now is it?

to comment on something people have been talking about in here as a related issue: i find it kind of funny that individuals (everywhere) are so moralistic about the iraq war when the US is the reason the taliban came into power in the first place. we even gave them military training.

rawr! wrote:

exact33 wrote:

SlaytanicPOWER wrote:

All I care about is the second and third-order effects of Assange's actions. "Collateral Murder" (as pinned on Pfc Manning) better not threaten myself or my Marines.

This is why I think Assange should be prosecuted. If someone engages in behavior that knowingly causes others to die, there should be punishment.

i hope youre anti-war then, otherwise it all seems a little arbitrary. i mean, the only thing separating murder (or otherwise contributing to the deaths of people) from war is government recognition, and the only thing most fundamentally required for a government in the world today is a group of people agreeing that one exists in some formal capacity. i dont think it should be up to some random people and their local, national, or global agenda whether or not the killing going on, be it in my backyard or a continent away, should be considered unlawful or immoral.

if wikileaks somehow contributes to military or civilian casualties, i think we should also keep in mind how military secrecy has contributed, and will continue to contribute to military and civilian casualties. advisers and officers and all the men staring down barrels make life and death decisions every day, i think they should be equally scrutinized, but theyre generally not. i mean, sure, there are incidents that make the news, but war in general continues on. war is bloody and dead soldiers and civilians become expected news.

as for the issue in general.....i believe in the responsible, respectful freedom of information. im anti-government secrecy, but im also anti-government, so its not too messy a deal now is it?

to comment on something people have been talking about in here as a related issue: i find it kind of funny that individuals (everywhere) are so moralistic about the iraq war when the US is the reason the taliban came into power in the first place. we even gave them military training.

The only thing I am fearing is the revealing of information of Unit Activities , Force Composition Disposition and Strength, Capabilities and Limitations, gets in the hands of insurgents or belligerents and would prolong the conflict and cause unnecessary casualties on our side (or directly cause an uproar of insurgent / combatant activity that would further the conflict and give us unnecessary losses).

Sure, reveal all these *big* government secrets, blah blah I don't care as I fight for the constitution, not the man in office.

There are essentially three sides. Our side, *their* side, and neutral. The second you reveal information that makes 'us' weaker or gives 'them' an advantage makes you one of 'them'.

Some stuff really ought to remain FOUO (For Official Use Only). I think '95%' all information should be accessible, but then you have got to question yourself pursing that extra 5% and ask yourself "Is this REALLY any of my business?"

Didn't mean for the topic to get into a heat-fest.

the reason i can have such an easy (as in "uncomplicated") time being for full disclosure is that i feel the wars we are fighting are illegitimate (and, naturally, the government is illegitimate). it would most certainly make waging war harder and more dangerous if we couldnt keep military secrets. if i was pro-war, i suppose i could still lobby for full disclosure saying its worth what we pay, since we are already saying as much about the current situation and the cost/situation seems pretty outrageous as it stands. i think people are starting to see a good point brought up by wikileaks---unless we all play by certain rules and submit to the government, governments/wars/the current global system dont work so well. if playing by the rules means no freedom of information, i think thats an indication that we need a new global system.

as for whether or not its "my business", i definitely think it is. i have no real use for information on troop deployments, for example, but the fact that the government forces me to give it money to deploy those troops, and furthermore the idea that government is fully accountable to citizens, would lead me to the conclusion that transparency is warranted. its not about the importance of the information, but rather the principle of the situation.

rawr! wrote:

the reason i can have such an easy (as in "uncomplicated") time being for full disclosure is that i feel the wars we are fighting are illegitimate (and, naturally, the government is illegitimate). it would most certainly make waging war harder and more dangerous if we couldnt keep military secrets. if i was pro-war, i suppose i could still lobby for full disclosure saying its worth what we pay, since we are already saying as much about the current situation and the cost/situation seems pretty outrageous as it stands. i think people are starting to see a good point brought up by wikileaks---unless we all play by certain rules and submit to the government, governments/wars/the current global system dont work so well. if playing by the rules means no freedom of information, i think thats an indication that we need a new global system.

as for whether or not its "my business", i definitely think it is. i have no real use for information on troop deployments, for example, but the fact that the government forces me to give it money to deploy those troops, and furthermore the idea that government is fully accountable to citizens, would lead me to the conclusion that transparency is warranted. its not about the importance of the information, but rather the principle of the situation.

If you dont like something - exercise your right to vote and elect people who you think will do what you believe in. Protest, rally and put pressure on elected officials to do what you think is right. Supporting those who engage in illegal activities is thumbing your nose at the rule of law. This Robin Hood mentality is nothing but pure lawbreaking.

i believe democracy is tyranny of the majority, or, in places like america, tyranny of the motivated blocs. i think you may have mistaken my previous statement about government to be less severe than it was: i dont just believe our government to be illegitimate, i believe all government to be illegitimate. its like how youd say a two year old cant give informed consent to sexual activity---i dont believe we can legitimately sign away our freedom in a social contract. also, as ive pointed out, legality is completely arbitrary.

lastly, to point out some important irony, america was itself founded on the principle of breaking the laws that suck because you think you can make a better world a different way. treason, sedition, and rebellion are a crucial part of the legacy of the founding fathers. and then theres all those lawbreakers like martin luther king jr keeping the flame alive throughout our embarrassing history.

rawr! wrote:

i believe democracy is tyranny of the majority, or, in places like america, tyranny of the motivated blocs. i think you may have mistaken my previous statement about government to be less severe than it was: i dont just believe our government to be illegitimate, i believe all government to be illegitimate. its like how youd say a two year old cant give informed consent to sexual activity---i dont believe we can legitimately sign away our freedom in a social contract. also, as ive pointed out, legality is completely arbitrary.

The world is not a great place without government - and I dont like the intrusiveness of the US Government but some form of government has to be in place.

rawr! wrote:

lastly, to point out some important irony, america was itself founded on the principle of breaking the laws that suck because you think you can make a better world a different way. treason, sedition, and rebellion are a crucial part of the legacy of the founding fathers. and then theres all those lawbreakers like martin luther king jr keeping the flame alive throughout our embarrassing history.

but it was not the original intent of the colonies to break from England. If their grievances would have been addressed in a manner they liked, things would be very different today. Like I said - protest all you want. Knock yourself out. But if you do something illegal - I hope they come and arrest you. King broke law - even if the law was unjust and was arrested for it. Are all laws just? - nope. I just think change ought to come by legal means.

rawr! wrote:

i believe democracy is tyranny of the majority, or, in places like america, tyranny of the motivated blocs. i think you may have mistaken my previous statement about government to be less severe than it was: i dont just believe our government to be illegitimate, i believe all government to be illegitimate. its like how youd say a two year old cant give informed consent to sexual activity---i dont believe we can legitimately sign away our freedom in a social contract. also, as ive pointed out, legality is completely arbitrary.

lastly, to point out some important irony, america was itself founded on the principle of breaking the laws that suck because you think you can make a better world a different way. treason, sedition, and rebellion are a crucial part of the legacy of the founding fathers. and then theres all those lawbreakers like martin luther king jr keeping the flame alive throughout our embarrassing history.

Given the choice between anarchy and government, I'll take government every time. Government does stupid things and abuses it's power all too often, usually in the form of taxes and exessive regulation, but that's still better than every man for himself and no rules at all in the liberal sort of ideal world where people magically get along without anyone having to deal with the bad guys who want to kill us all simply because we don't believe like they do.

bassman wrote:

rawr! wrote:

i believe democracy is tyranny of the majority, or, in places like america, tyranny of the motivated blocs. i think you may have mistaken my previous statement about government to be less severe than it was: i dont just believe our government to be illegitimate, i believe all government to be illegitimate. its like how youd say a two year old cant give informed consent to sexual activity---i dont believe we can legitimately sign away our freedom in a social contract. also, as ive pointed out, legality is completely arbitrary.

lastly, to point out some important irony, america was itself founded on the principle of breaking the laws that suck because you think you can make a better world a different way. treason, sedition, and rebellion are a crucial part of the legacy of the founding fathers. and then theres all those lawbreakers like martin luther king jr keeping the flame alive throughout our embarrassing history.

Given the choice between anarchy and government, I'll take government every time. Government does stupid things and abuses it's power all too often, usually in the form of taxes and exessive regulation, but that's still better than every man for himself and no rules at all in the liberal sort of ideal world where people magically get along without anyone having to deal with the bad guys who want to kill us all simply because we don't believe like they do.

By what you are saying here you really show how your government work. They have fooled/scared you in to believing that the world is full of bad guys who would love to kill you because you don`t believe like they do.
Do you seriously think it is so?
Has it ever crossed your mind that the hatred towards USA and their allies is a result of our constant interfeaing, control, warfare and exploitation of countries all around the world?
Not saying that anarchy would work, but certanly not because anyone would want to kill you for what you believe.
Money, greed, and the fact that humans are sheep who are easy to manipulate to follow crazy charismatic leaders, are some issues against anarchy.
The only religion in the world who is hell bent on making others believe the same as they do is christanity.

[quote="Olafsto"]

bassman wrote:

The only religion in the world who is hell bent on making others believe the same as they do is christanity.

tell that to the people of London who are even now being blanketed by Muslims who are saying God had no Son and it is blasphemy to say so. Islam is every bit as interested in conversion as Christianity - even now to the point of killing inifidels.