|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 6, 2010 21:01:23 GMT -5
WikiLeaks aren't terrorists threatening to blow up a building, they are leaking information. And what they demanded is simply that the US tell them what information is particularly risky to release. Meaning that they don't know what is risky....or why. Fine, www.tgdaily.com/security-features/52895-wikileaks-threatens-poison-pill-if-site-shut-down or any of the other sites reporting it.
No leverage? Wikileaks and Assange would still have the unedited documents. They could, at their will, threaten to release them so people could see what information the US government thought was important. It would be like highlighting the important information for people, instead of them having to pick through thousands and thousands of pages.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 6, 2010 21:31:31 GMT -5
In a democratic government, unlike the fascist dictatorship you want, government is accountable to the people. Government acts only with the consent of the governed. That means that, in every case, wars must be started only with the consent of the US people. Obviously, in your fascist tyranny, the King could invade whoever he wanted, near-completely secretly. It's also important to note that Saddam never stopped UN inspectors coming into his country; Bill Clinton ordered them out so he could bomb the country and they only returned late 2002. Presumably, a open government would allow it's citizens to know this as well, reducing the support for the war. Again your ignorance of the US government is showing. The President of the US does not need the support of the US people, congress or anyone else to go to war. The most congress could do is not fund an effort, but not outright stop it. Yes, they where there, but only where Saddam wanted. It might prevent it, or it may just make it harder. That depends on their intelligence. Of course it is not like the invasion of Iraq was some big surprise. Vietnam was unpopular, but it was also un-win able. Had that not been the fact its unpopularity may not have mattered. Nixion and corrupt CIA agent are individuals, and not the Government in the whole. Waterboarding and other advance interrogation techniques where known about far before Wikileaks released information. MKULTRA may have ended, or just have gotten buried deeper. Yup! ....says the idiot. Yes, they might end. So might programs that keep people from getting killed. You are the one saying it is not an argument. If you think that show how. Yes, no single individual. Just organizations within the government. Only his private emails; not his work-related ones. It's an offence to use a private (non-FISAble) email to conduct work. Those work-related emails are the property of the investors or (in the case of government) citizens. Yes, for the government, for corporations, well that would depend on the corporation. Some government e-mails may public domain, meaning the public can view them. Others are not. Whatever ltfred. This from the person who thinks the left is always right. No it is not international law, but that does not mean a non-US citizen can't be charged. As I said extradition can be a bitch. Really, then why the threats of more releases if he is arrested? If he was the holier-then-thou person you think he is he would have already releases those. Not the mention him calling for government officials to resign. Seems like intent. ....and remember its you that likes mindless following of laws. OK. He was not innocent. Nor is he now. That sums up why you are blindly defensing him very nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 6, 2010 22:21:52 GMT -5
So, Itfred, your position is sounding like there is no need for classified documents or undercover operations. Did you applaud the Bush administration for outing Valerie Plame? Geraldo for revealing troop movements in Iraq? Websites that out cops who are going undercover in drug stings? Where does the public's right to know end?
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Dec 7, 2010 6:17:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 7, 2010 6:21:07 GMT -5
So, Itfred, your position is sounding like there is no need for classified documents or undercover operations. Did you applaud the Bush administration for outing Valerie Plame? Geraldo for revealing troop movements in Iraq? Websites that out cops who are going undercover in drug stings? Where does the public's right to know end? I think that legitimate intelligence is okay, albeit incredibly tricky to do democratically. Frankly, iin a perfect world nobody would do it. In this world, we have to do the best ect ect. Spies names obviously should remain secret. However, the public does need some means of keeping an eye on the spies; history shows us wha they will do if secrecy lets them get away with it. The intelligence community needs to have as little secrecy as is possible for them to continue to do their jobs- even at the (slight) expense of their effectiveness at their job. Perhaps the public should recieve some details of all operations once they are finished. The public can't debate whether we should help the Belgians assasinate Lumumba, but perhaps they should get an immediate post-hoc right to judge. Coupled with heavy, stringent penalties for keeping secret things that shouldn't be, this might work. Perhaps the media should be allowed to embed in agencies. In any case, the National Security State needs to be far more open. The agencies also need to be massively downsized. BTW, Geraldo's an idiot. Troop movements are obviously something the public doesn't need to know about in advance.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 7, 2010 6:57:57 GMT -5
In a democratic government, unlike the fascist dictatorship you want, government is accountable to the people. Government acts only with the consent of the governed. That means that, in every case, wars must be started only with the consent of the US people. Obviously, in your fascist tyranny, the King could invade whoever he wanted, near-completely secretly. It's also important to note that Saddam never stopped UN inspectors coming into his country; Bill Clinton ordered them out so he could bomb the country and they only returned late 2002. Presumably, a open government would allow it's citizens to know this as well, reducing the support for the war. Completely false, in theory. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight gives congress the power "to declare war", not the president. However, in practice the president usually breaks this law. In democratic theory, congress will only act with the consent of the governed- ie with public support. Nice to see you admit a falsity. Either is fine. Not finding WMDs sure was. But the peace movement did have an effect. In any case, revealing government lies and incompetence helped to end, at least, that. Yes, and they hid behind overnment secrecy to commit their crimes. Without that secrecy, they wouldn't have been able. Didn't say that. I talked about the warrantless wiretapping program revealed by the New York Times. If the CIA was more open, it would never have even started. All government work-emails, whether public domain or not, are owned by the public. That public cannot steal those emails; it owns them. However, it's reasonable that some of those public-owned emails remain secret from their owners. Unlike yourself, who always thinks the central position to be right. He has blackmailed the US government into not arresting him without trial. If you guys play dirty, he will too. However, this does not show allegience to Al Qaeda. Nor does the wish for some government officials who broke the law to resign. Indeed. As a democrat, I believe in a government subject to the rule of law. As a fascist, you do not. In the eternal words of Christopher Hitchens 'fascist crackpot!' He has never been convicted of any crime by a fair court. We must presume him innocent. You are defending government law-breaking, not I.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 7, 2010 8:16:31 GMT -5
Completely false, in theory. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight gives congress the power "to declare war", not the president. However, in practice the president usually breaks this law. In democratic theory, congress will only act with the consent of the governed- ie with public support. In theory......well welcome to reality. For one declaring war and waging war is two different things. For another, congress also can act without public support. Only to the point that Saddam might have well kicked them out because he was not allowing them to do their jobs. Until a nations ability to respond to threats start to get more people killed. So was finding yellow cake and other information. Yet, it did not end the war all on its own. What government secrecy? Nixon's staff was the ones keeping the secrets not the government. Yes, the New York Times revealed them. They did so without massive document dumps or having anyone break the law. If the CIA was more open it would be utterly useless. Again, they are not owned by the public. They can be viewed by the public but are not owned by them. Yes, they can be stolen. To view government e-mails a request must be made. Not at all. Most of what I agree with is considered left of center. I don't agree with something just because it is one place or the other on the political spectrum. People are always arrested before trial. I hope you mean convicted. It does show that he interested in hurting that US government. So government subject to the rule of law, other people such as Mr. Assange are not? ltfred you are only interested in rule of law when it suits your beliefs. If you feel a law is unjust, you say it ok to break it. If they play dirty so can we. You want the government to regulate business, but don't trust them to do it. Spies are ok, but need to be watch by the public. (Which by the way is absurd) You who believes the other side is wrong and should be stopped. You are closer to a fascist then I am. Just a left wing fascist. In the famous word of fathers world wide "Don't be an idiot" You can presume all you want. The fact is, he is not innocent. Well unless you rape the word "innocent". Really, Your the one defending a website that deals in stolen documents, and a man who blackmails people. Not to mention a site that represents the biggest threat to freedom on the Internet, not its greatest hope. You see with freedom comes responsibility. What Wikileaks is doing is going to be a powerful argument for more controls of the Internet. Information is useless if no one can see it. Oh, and ltfred you should be happy that the US is going after Wikileaks and not just using them. It would not be two hard to create false documents and then leak them would it?
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Dec 7, 2010 11:18:13 GMT -5
I read the BBC article. I don't think i've ever seen a sketchier trial. It's interesting what states would do to simply get someone. Why won't the US just bring him in on espionage charges?
|
|
|
Post by deusmalum on Dec 7, 2010 11:20:50 GMT -5
This sounds like a shit ton of hot air. Someone evading real allegations doesn't go to a country where he can be extradited and then turn himself in to police when the warrant's issued. Seems like they just want to tie him down in legal red tape for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Dec 7, 2010 11:32:53 GMT -5
Completely false, in theory. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight gives congress the power "to declare war", not the president. However, in practice the president usually breaks this law. In democratic theory, congress will only act with the consent of the governed- ie with public support. In theory......well welcome to reality. For one declaring war and waging war is two different things. For another, congress also can act without public support. Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Prior to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution the president needed the express support of congress to declare war or use conventional military force against any given nation. Constitutionally speaking a president shouldn't be able to do a damned thing aside from calling for war. But of course when it comes to those darned commies congress pissed that right and the lives of Americans away to executive authority with only a handful of dissenters.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 7, 2010 15:24:05 GMT -5
Prior to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution the president needed the express support of congress to declare war or use conventional military force against any given nation. Constitutionally speaking a president shouldn't be able to do a damned thing aside from calling for war. But of course when it comes to those darned commies congress pissed that right and the lives of Americans away to executive authority with only a handful of dissenters. Far before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution President Adam waged the Franco-American War without a declaration from Congress. As I said, in reality the President as Commander and Chief has the power to wage war. ......just not call it that.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 7, 2010 18:24:13 GMT -5
Prior to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution the president needed the express support of congress to declare war or use conventional military force against any given nation. Constitutionally speaking a president shouldn't be able to do a damned thing aside from calling for war. But of course when it comes to those darned commies congress pissed that right and the lives of Americans away to executive authority with only a handful of dissenters. Far before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution President Adam waged the Franco-American War without a declaration from Congress. As I said, in reality the President as Commander and Chief has the power to wage war. ......just not call it that. In theory, stopping another person's heart or beating them to death is illegal. In practice, most angry people will commit murder. Obviously, the law is too impractical to continue. Clearly, we can only have laws that everyone obeys. Otherwise we'd have to -shock- punish people for the crimes they commit. And that would be very uncentrist, very uncivil.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 7, 2010 18:53:12 GMT -5
Only to the point that Saddam might have well kicked them out because he was not allowing them to do their jobs. The inspectors did their jobs perfectly. They made totally accurate judgements of Iraq's capabilities and intentions. We are far from that point. Another lie. WMDs were imaginary. Saddam ended his program in 1991, when US support was dropped. Nixon's government agencies, government employees and government staff were keeping secret some information. Wikileaks hasn't dumped the most recent documents; newspapers have published them. Why that would matter anyway is, I think, obscure. It has never broken the law. I disagree. If it were totally open, that would be the case. But more open, not necessarily so. Clearly MKULTRA was not something that needed to be kept secret. Nor are past operations. Less secrecy, even in immediate hindsight, would ake impossible the kinds of operations you can only do without public knowlege- ie, illegal, unwarranted, stupid, incompetent or murderous ones. Simply a lie. No argument made. Tacit admission of wrong. Well, please don't accuse other people of doing that because they hold beliefs that are different to your own. People can believe different things, rationally. Only insofar that 'hurting' means 'obeying the constitution'. It's less important that they are (because most modern unpunished criminals are government employees), but they still should be. If Assange has committed a real crime, I'll be happy to see him go to jail. He probably hasn't, though. This is absurd. This is barely even an argument. It's almost childish- 'you are but what am I'? Yes, the government can do good. It should exist. But, like all secret authority, it will do bad. It's not a perfect institution, and it deserves criticism and very close watching to prevent it from being more bad that in has to be. This is no different to any other authoritarian institution. Corporations usually just have fewer guns. EVERYONE believes the other side is wrong and should be stopped. That's what an ideology is. Everyone has an ideology. As for breaking laws; I think it is justified for near-powerless actors with no other choice to break clearly unjust laws that are upheld with violence, in order to end that law. This is clearly a touchy point. I don't think there are any such laws currently active in the US. Not wanting to arrest editors for being editors is being an idiot now? Not 'want'. Must. People have the right to a presumption of innocence. Exercising that presumption is an imperative, not a choice. Fortunately, wikipedia isn't irresponsible- not even a little. They always rigorously fact-check the documents they recieve.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 8, 2010 5:27:00 GMT -5
More info on the responsibility, or lack thereof, of the leaked documents and Assange: From ABC News: Again, Assange/WikiLeaks was given the documents, but it's whomever is responsible for obtaining the documents in the first place that broke laws. That is, unless the information that WikiLeaks released can be shown to directly endanger people's lives, at which point they'd share partial responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Dec 8, 2010 6:04:53 GMT -5
More info on the responsibility, or lack thereof, of the leaked documents and Assange: From ABC News: That bit confused me, so here's a clarifying passage, for casual readers:
|
|