Quote :

"I follow lawful orders, not just ones I personally agree with. "

what a fucking pussy

12/7/2010 2:00:33 PM

Quote :

"Show me one example of a US citizen (non gov't worker) being prosecuted for viewing this data. Show me one example of a US citizen (gov't worker) being prosecuted for viewing this data (beyond being reminded they shouldn't be reading it)"

None yet. I hope you're right here and this never happens.

Quote :

"In the grand scheme of things, I follow the orders of my CinC elected by you and other citizens. Blame yourself if you think I'm doing something wrong."

Exactly where I think the blame should rest; this is why people need information and transparency so as to rate and figure out what's going on at the top levels. What's going on up there has little to do with serving the interests of us down here. The problem is that these people represent us to the world. Yikes.

Quote :

"I don't know what to tell ya, dude. That's not the definition the govt. uses when classifying documents. it has more to do with the damage category information falls in were it to be made public and less with the fact that it has been made public"

Damage to who?

12/7/2010 2:16:08 PM

Uh, you just said the US gov't was trying to punish it's citizens, I asked you to provide examples and you admitted no one had be punished. Is this your standard arguing tactic?


Also, Damage to whom?

12/7/2010 2:20:15 PM

Quote :

"Uh, you just said the US gov't was trying to punish it's citizens, I asked you to provide examples and you admitted no one had be punished. Is this your standard arguing tactic?"

Haven't you seen the various career-center warnings against accessing these leaks? They basically say "if you want this cheddar then you play by our rules and stop asking questions".

You shouldn't have to weigh being a good citizen against being employed, even by the government.

Quote :

"Also, Damage to whom?"

Oh give me a fucking break

12/7/2010 2:23:44 PM

shutter the fed. give all the money back to the people. fire every federal worker.

12/7/2010 2:26:30 PM

So, that depends on the category, but the short answer isn't to whom... its to what. That what being national security.

Top secret - exeptionally grave damage to national security

Secret - grave damage to national security

Confidential - damage or be prejudicial to national security

Unclassified - undesirable effects. Nothing to do with national security, and cab be viewed sometimes without a clearance

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 2:31 PM. Reason : l]

12/7/2010 2:28:09 PM

Visa and Mastercard have suspended donations to Wikileaks.

12/7/2010 2:29:14 PM

Quote :

"So, that depends on the category, but the short answer isn't to whom... its to what. That what being national security. Top secret - ex optionally grave damage to national security Secret - grave damage to national security Confidential - damage or be prejudicial to national security Unclassified - undesirable effects. Nothing to do with national security, and cab be viewed sometimes without a clearance"

How do you know the documents are classified correctly? Also, given the actions of our govt/military abroad, at what point does it become public business what they're really up to?

You really have no clue what's going on because you can't view the documents. Rather, because you won't.

12/7/2010 2:30:49 PM

^^ now that is totally mind boggling

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 2:31 PM. Reason : rawr arrows]

12/7/2010 2:31:33 PM

In my experience, the documents are classified at the,level of work I'm doing.


And LOL, quit acting butt hurt....assuming all or even most classified documents are the government trying to cover up some conspiracy or wrongdoing

12/7/2010 2:35:24 PM

At daybreak, the Patriots attacked, taking the Loyalists completely by surprise. The Patriots were yelling commands to fictitious units, further scaring the Loyalists. Slingsby was killed, and the Loyalists ran into a deep ravine, where they were shot at until they surrendered. The site of the killing soon became known as "Tory Hole."

12/7/2010 2:36:42 PM

Quote :

"And LOL, quit acting butt hurt....assuming all or even most classified documents are the government trying to cover up some conspiracy or wrongdoing"

I don't have to assume

12/7/2010 2:42:26 PM

Quote :

""I follow lawful orders, not just ones I personally agree with. ""

So if you are ordered to put a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger your response will be "Yes Sir". That is pretty scary right there!

I still haven't seen a rational response as to why the US is so concerned with preventing domestic access of these documents. US citizens should be the last people they are concerned about. Also no response to why it is taking a rape charge to arrest Assange, and why the government refused to redact documents to protect it's citizenry. Those facts are a little too disturbing to be summarily ignored.

12/7/2010 2:48:45 PM

rape is such a fashionable charge, these days. it's the only sure-fire way to damage someone's credibility.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 2:51 PM. Reason : 33 POSTS. 33 years old]

12/7/2010 2:50:34 PM

Sweet.

So now, let's roll through an example.....VERY AGGRESSIVELY.

Say there is a recipe for armour plating for a u.s. tank, including results of ballistic testing, and survivability rates written in a classified document.
Why does John Q public need to know that?
What corruption or wrongdoing is going on there?
You can, undoubtedly, understand how that information could be used negatively if leaked.. correct?
Or...do you propose that someone that doesn't agree with war simply illegally leak that info. ?

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 2:55 PM. Reason : a]

12/7/2010 2:53:29 PM

SECURITY

THROUGH

OBSCURITY

12/7/2010 2:57:17 PM

Quote :

"So now, let's roll through an example.....VERY AGGRESSIVELY. Say there is a recipe for armour plating for a u.s. tank, including results of ballistic testing, and survivability rates written in a classified document. Why does John Q public need to know that? What corruption or wrongdoing is going on there? You can, undoubtedly, understand how that information could be used negatively if leaked.. correct? Or...do you propose that someone that doesn't agree with war simply illegally leak that info. ?"

I like your fictitious example how about we play with a real example

Say there's evidence that the US has been ignoring Iraqi-on-Iraqi torture at the hands of US-trained security forces.
Why does John Q public need to know that?
What corruption or wrongdoing is going on there?
You can, undoubtedly, understand how that information could be used negatively if leaked... correct?


God damn you're weak-minded. As soon as Assange starts leaking blueprints from R&D I'll get pissed alongside you for the same reasons you alluded to above. It's possible to agree with some of the leaks and not with others (I wish he had censored the CI/KR list, or at least only left in military-related installments -- hell, I wish our OWN GOVERNMENT had taken the opportunity it was given).

Again it's hilarious having this discussion with somebody who is literally in the dark about this. These leaks are exposing systematic wrongdoing, not tank schematics. You can continue to couch your argument in a completely fictitious context if you'd like; it's exactly what I expect from somebody who doesn't have the relevant knowledge. This is why the USG wants to prevent those who work for it (including those who finance it) from knowing the truth; because when they don't, they make ridiculous and irrelevant arguments like yours. Yes, leaking tank schematics would be bad and wrong. This is not what's happening, and even if it was, we'd still have a lot of actual meat in the leaks to pour through, things that impact the citizens of this country and will continue to impact them into the foreseeable future. Unless you're both an American exceptionalist AND an elitist (thinking that only the corporate elite and their cronies in the government should have a say in how we present ourselves to the world), then there's no way you can continue to support this establishment and its practices.

But then again they pay your fucking bills so what do I expect other than a simple shill?

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 3:00:41 PM

Quote :

"So now, let's roll through an example.....VERY AGGRESSIVELY. Say there is a recipe for armour plating for a u.s. tank, including results of ballistic testing, and survivability rates written in a classified document. Why does John Q public need to know that? What corruption or wrongdoing is going on there? You can, undoubtedly, understand how that information could be used negatively if leaked.. correct? Or...do you propose that someone that doesn't agree with war simply illegally leak that info. ? "

Ok even using your idiotic example. Why would you worry so much about your own citizenry accessing this information. EVERYONE has access to it. The cat is out of the bag already yet you are so concerned with limiting your own citizens. And that concern elevates right before the announcement that financial leaks are going to be released. hmmmmmm coincidence?

Ohh and the government was contacted to see if they wanted to redact any of that information but they said GO AWAY TERRORIST WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH YOU.


[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ^ OH SHIT EMCE isn't supposed to see actual information it might be classified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 3:12 PM. Reason : asdfs]

12/7/2010 3:06:31 PM

My example is just one of many realities for me.

And like I said before... I don't agree with a lot of what our government does. stop trying to make your argument like I said that I do.
I happen to see merit in keeping information secret. And see the benefit of protecting secrets. Unfortunately, yes, that allows for cover ups to happen. You cant just have that classified information (good or bad) on unclassifiedpsystems and in public view. If that happened, how would you propose the good classified data I
Be protected?

Face reality man... your perfect little world can never exist. You are ALWAYS going to have to accept some negative things to reap the rewards of the positive.




And I love how you put your faith in Assange to not leak certain information that he may have. You're a goddamn fool if you can't understand the need to gaurd against both real and potential threats.
HAHA, OK GUYS... HERE ARE OUR SECRETS! REMEMBER, WERE TRUSTING YOU TO NOT DO ANYTHING BAD MMMK?

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 3:34 PM. Reason : J]

12/7/2010 3:24:40 PM

Quote :

"One of the early members and co-founders of the tight-knit, secretive WikiLeaks operation charged today that the website and its co-founder, Julian Assange, sold intelligence information the site had obtained. John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business. Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=236345

Not that this is remotely surprising, but it is about time we drop the pretentious bullshit that WikiLeaks is some sort of noble openness crusader.

12/7/2010 3:30:02 PM

Quote :

"My example is just one of many realities for me."

Too bad it's not the reality of the current situation. Anything you'd like to discuss w.r.t. wikileaks and real life, or are we just going to listen to you pontificate about rules & regulations and about the space of abstract possibilities?

Quote :

"And like I said before... I don't agree with a lot of what our government does. stop trying to make your argument like I said that I do. "

You might disagree with what they do but you agree with upholding their ability to do it.

Quote :

"I happen to see merit in keeping information secret. And see the benefit of protecting secrets. Unfortunately, yes, that allows for covers to happen. You cant just have that classified information (good or bad) on unclassified systems and in public view. If that happened, how would you propose the good classified data is protected?"

I'm not suggesting we have no state secrets at all. If you had read this thread then you would know that. Nobody is making the argument that governments need to be 100% open and transparent with respect to all data, regardless of the domain.

What people ARE arguing is that secrecy should be afforded with legitimacy. The USG abroad and the US military have been operating in ways that are not in the public's best interest, pretty much since WW2. I want our state to maintain secrets, but I want the secrets to be secret because of a legitimate security concern and not because it pretties-up/denies/covers-up illegitimate practices.

Quote :

"Face reality man... your perfect little world can never exist. You are ALWAYS going to have to accept some negative things to reap the rewards of the positive."

Save your empty platitudes for yourself. Do you honestly think I don't realize this? This is always the excuse that submissives trot out. "Don't you know things will always be messed up?" Sure. But I want them to be LESS messed up. At the moment they're so messed up that our government/military has next-to-zero legitimacy, both from a foreign and a domestic perspective. They are running this shit into the ground actively and you're arguing that not only should we let them, but that they should have no or reduced accountability to the public they are screwing.

Quote :

"Not that this is remotely surprising, but it is about time we drop the pretentious bullshit that WikiLeaks is some sort of noble openness crusader."

More ridiculous misdirection. Focus on Assange! Don't focus on the systematic wrongdoing he exposed

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 3:30:26 PM

i would very interested in knowing how to effectively separate harmful/malicious secrets from necessary ones. I'd argue that often they're inseparable. Which is probably why they're all classified and protected.

But, I'm sure you can enlighten us?

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : l]

12/7/2010 3:48:55 PM

Quote :

"i would very interested in knowing how to effectively separate harmful/malicious secrets from necessary ones. I'd argue that often they're inseparable. Which is probably they're all classified and protected. But, I'm sure you can enlighten us?"

The USG had an opportunity to do this and declined.

I do not have a general algorithm for separating harmful/malicious secrets from necessary ones. If our illegitimacy is tied to our necessary practices, then this is a great argument for full transparency until things are reined in.

Again I think the CI/KR list should have been censored (or at least filtered), but if these sorts of secrets are the price of restoring legitimacy to our government and military then I think it's ultimately worth it. Keep in mind at this point that the entire world knows the content of these files; keeping Americans in the dark is only going to make things WORSE, as it keeps them from learning about the things they legitimately need to know about in those documents (and there's plenty, trust me).

Either way the argument is not about whether or not these things are to be leaked; they ARE being leaked. Seeing as how the information is out there, the best possible thing we could hope for is that Americans read through them and force their government to become accountable to them again. Of course, hatchet-men like you are working overtime to prevent this attitude from taking root. I wonder if it's because Uncle Sam is stuffing dollars in your pocket?

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 3:51:30 PM

Other gems from world net daily include:

BORN IN THE USA?
Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
Attorney files motion for authentication of alleged 1960s certificate from Africa,

Innocent blood: How lying marketers sold Roe v. Wade to America,


MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Abortion staff ignores baby boy born alive?
Woman pleads for help with 'Rowan' after delivering son in clinic restroom


Sounds like a nice credible source to me!

12/7/2010 3:53:18 PM

Quote :

"http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=236345 Not that this is remotely surprising, but it is about time we drop the pretentious bullshit that WikiLeaks is some sort of noble openness crusader."

lol a bunch of actual USG documents get released and you spend your time reading WND

are you fucking kidding me? You don't deserve living in a free society. good thing people like you will practically ensure none of us will within 50 years.

12/7/2010 3:55:01 PM

Quote :

"i would very interested in knowing how to effectively separate harmful/malicious secrets from necessary ones. I'd argue that often they're inseparable. "

They're not inseparable, it's just impossible to have a formalized procedure for separating them.

That's why whistle-blower protection laws (not that I think assange is really a whistle-blower, he's not), and a strong judicial system, are very important.

12/7/2010 4:09:21 PM

Quote :

"That's why whistle-blower protection laws (not that I think assange is really a whistle-blower, he's not), and a strong judicial system, are very important."

It's also important to have a voting population that knows how to weigh evidence rationally and examine their own interests in an honest and ethical way.

12/7/2010 4:10:57 PM

Hey man, I think you know as well as I that there is no good answer to that question about separating the necessary from the malicious.
And as good of a case as one can make for transparency, an equally good one can be made for secrecy. So call me all the names you need to, or accuse me of being bought out...whatever, I'm beyond caring about what a keyboard hero thinks of me... Ill be sure to write you a nice letter the day that your opinion starts to effect me. At the end of the day, I'm able to accept the need to maintain secrecy. Classified is too broad of a label to fully expose if there is a forced dichotomy. If unable to separate, i would rather air on the side of caution.



And I'm not doing shit to keep people from reading the leaks and forming an opinion. I believe all I was doing was informing people, who might not otherwise know, that it is very much true that federal and contracting jobs could potentially look at the reading of classified data as an example of mishandling classified info.

But then again, I guess someone has to have an opinion for you to argue with.... even if you have to make that opinion up yourself!

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM. Reason : moar]

12/7/2010 4:17:37 PM

Quote :

"And as good of a case as one can make for transparency, an equally good one can be made for secrecy."

Secrecy should be afforded with legitimacy.

Quote :

"So call me all the names you need to, or accuse me of being bought out...whatever, I'm beyond caring about what a keyboard hero thinks of me... Ill be sure to write you a nice letter the day that your opinion starts to effect me. At the end of the day, I'm able to accept the need to maintain secrecy. Classified is too broad of a label to fully expose if there is a forced dichotomy. If unable to separate, i would rather air on the side of caution."

Translation: my superiors know what's best for me, how dare I question them?

You'd rather err on the side of allowing our government and military to continue to soil our (yes, our, personally speaking) reputations world-wide. The world sees how we react to this; they see that we're plugging our ears and eyes to the wrongdoing rather than addressing it now that it's in the public light. What excuse do we have for the illegitimacy and wrongdoing at this point, as citizens?

Quote :

"And I'm not doing shit to keep people from reading the leaks and forming an opinion. I believe all I was doing was informing people, who might not otherwise know, that it is very much true that federal and contracting jobs could potentially look at the reading of classified data as an example of mishandling classified info."

You're passing along the following message: "shut up, sit down, close your ears, close your eyes; or your future job prospects are limited". In other words: "get complicit with what this government's doing or get out". How do you not see this as reprehensible?

Quote :

" But then again, I guess someone has to have an opinion for you to argue with.... even if you have to make that opinion up yourself!"

Acting ridiculous is only impressing yourself. I don't understand what you seek to accomplish with stupid rhetorical moves like these. Your opinion is obvious: it doesn't matter what Americans are doing overseas in the name of all of us with our tax dollars. We should shut up and let them do it; even when this means torture. Even when this means killing civilians. Even when this means ignoring torture. Even when this means risking American lives, capital, and security on gambles to enrich our elite

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 4:37:32 PM

Listen to yourself...
All of that flies in the face of reality. Yeah, I agree.... that describes a nice perfect little world.
Come down to earth for a second and realize you can't separate a legitimate secret so easily.
Realize that if you do illegal shit.... fine. But If you get caught doing it, then it has real consequences.
Realize that whether you like what I'm saying or not in terms of security clearances has little bearing on the fact that is can affect your job.


Its easy to play in barbie land, dawg. How about coming up with real solutions to a multi variable problem. Yeah, that might involve more than saying how the system sucks, and pretending that everything is an absolute.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 5:00 PM. Reason : l]

12/7/2010 4:58:48 PM

Quote :

"Listen to yourself... All of that flies in the face of reality. Yeah, I agree.... that describes a nice perfect little world. "

Any improvement of this world as it stands is a "perfect nice little world"? You have to try harder than this.

Quote :

"Come down to earth for a second and realize you can't separate a legitimate secret so easily. "

Secrecy should be afforded with legitimacy. At this point in time our government and military have illegitimate goals and practices. Transparency allows for accountability, such that legitimacy can be restored and secrets kept again.

Secrets should not be kept so as to protect and extend wrongdoing.

Quote :

"Realize that if you do illegal shit.... fine. But If you get caught doing it, then it has real consequences."

Of course.

Quote :

"Realize that whether you like what I'm saying or not in terms of security clearances has little bearing on the fact that is can affect your job."

Criminal rings don't hire snitches

Quote :

"Its easy to play in barbie land, dawn. How about coming up with real solutions to a multi variable problem. Yeah, that might involve more than saying how the system sucks, and pretending that everything is an absolute."

You have no fucking idea what I do and don't think with respect to positive solutions here. Just because I have been focusing on criticism here (seeing as how we have a whole new trove of what amounts to admissions to criticize) doesn't mean I don't likewise think systematically about how things could be constructed better.

This is weak shit EMCE stay in fucking chit chat

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 5:02:53 PM

Christ...

12/7/2010 5:08:50 PM

Yeah I'd say. Facts and arguments versus "the goof juice dispenser" who is just repeating propaganda and who is ignorant of the content under discussion

It's almost like you're under siege here personally and realize that if you don't let your superiors do whatever they want in comfortable secrecy that you'll lose your salary. Oh wait that's basically true

It's cool that you've explicitly sided against the American people and humanity at large, just to ally yourselves with the elites who are selling conflict, though. At least you're willing to grant us that much honesty, that you're part of the problem.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 5:09:47 PM

^Ouch. But I will say, if I was using engineering degree to be a mercenary of death I'd probably hang myself. Or quit. Whichever was easier.

12/7/2010 5:57:59 PM

^ you wouldn't.

You'd rationalize that it was for the greater good (and it might actually be in some sense).

The technology developed for weapons is almost always used in some other non-weapon application. It's easy to rationalize.

12/7/2010 6:16:19 PM

You have no idea what I do, what my degree is in, or my reasons for doing what I do/did. My work was/is much more concerned with safety and survivability of soldiers in the event that one of these machines of death is hit with a missile, bomb, etc..., and engineering for transportation reasons.
Because I don't agree with war, govt. conspiracy, coverups, and the like does NOT mean that I can't do my part to ensure one day these soldiers can make it home in one piece. But then again, this probably doesn't make much sense to someone living in a world of absolutes.

12/7/2010 6:21:24 PM

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

12/7/2010 6:31:49 PM

Quote :

"Nobody is making the argument that governments need to be 100% open and transparent with respect to all data, regardless of the domain. What people ARE arguing is that secrecy should be afforded with legitimacy."

I'm legitimately confused here, perhaps you can help.

It sounds like one side of your mouth is saying, "When the government is doing illegitimate things, like it is now, secrecy is off the table."

And then out of the other mouth I hear, "The government may be doing illegitimate things, but I'm still OK with keeping some secrets."

For example,

Quote :

"You might disagree with what they do but you agree with upholding their ability to do it."

OK, so apparently upholding their ability to do these things is bad, fuck soldiers' lives. And a few posts earlier...

Quote :

"As soon as Assange starts leaking blueprints from R&D I'll get pissed alongside you for the same reasons you alluded to above."

So apparently upholding their ability to do these things is OK, as long as it protects soldiers' lives.

The best way to reconcile all these different positions that I can come up with is that secrets about what misdirected us into the war are fair game, and secrets that hurt our guys during the war aren't, but I don't recall hearing many secrets in wikileaks about the former but I bet I could come up with a few about the latter.

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm asking for clarification.

12/7/2010 6:32:41 PM

^ he's saying our gov. has no credibility in claiming that they are keeping this secret for safety reasons, and not for reasons that involve covering their asses.

The documents leaked were leaked indiscriminately, so there is a good bit of information that serves no purpose in being leaked, but there is other information that's secrecy serves only the purpose of covering up, and tacitly encouraging, incompetence.

It's probably overly idealistic to think that any gov. can operate with clean hands, and still keep expanding and progressing. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2010 6:34:38 PM

Quote :

"A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try and "quash" the story, according to one of the US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks. In a meeting with the assistant US ambassador, a panicked Hanif Atmar, the interior minister at the time of the episode last June, warned that the story would "endanger lives" and was particularly concerned that a video of the incident might be made public."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys

Drugs, child prostitutes, and cover-ups. BUSINESS AS USUAL.

12/7/2010 6:46:21 PM

Quote :

"he's saying our gov. has no credibility in claiming that they are keeping this secret for safety reasons, and not for reasons that involve covering their asses."

as far as i can tell, even the people ITT speaking out against the usefulness of the leaks aren't doing it because they don't desire incompetence and ass-covering to be exposed. I think it's safe to say most everyone supports transparency when it exposes that type of malfeasance.

The problem many people have with Wikileak's is their nondiscrimination. Wikileaks is ostensibly saying, hey, it's all or nothing.

When presented this option, of either exposing everything, the vast majority of which may have no intrinsic value in terms of exposing ass-covering or incompetence, or exposing nothing, some people would rather choose the latter and err on the side of discretion. That certainly doesn't make those people slaves of some absurd, perceived govt conspiracy.

All the baseless, hyperbolic name calling is funny to read though.


[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 6:57 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 6:47:16 PM

However earlier in this discussion you will find many people accusing Assange of cherry picking. "He is onl posting stuff that makes america look bad". Well that attitude (along with your genius goverments refusal to redact) is getting everything posted. Again really sounds like the government is looking out for "national security" doesn't it.

12/7/2010 6:57:07 PM

i don't recall anyone saying they're concerned that the government looks bad

12/7/2010 6:58:36 PM

Quote :

"they've already tainted themselves and proven that they can not be trusted. there is a high likelihood that they have chosen not to release documents that provide exculpatory information or other positive information regarding the US military operations. "

Concerned that Assange is only posting stuff to make america look bad.

12/7/2010 7:15:15 PM

The US Government is welcome to release these "exculpatory" documents, if they exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breaking News From the State Department!!!

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day 2011
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

.
..
...
Hahahahaha...it gets even better.
World Press Freedom Day is having to censor their facebook page.
http://www.connect.connect.facebook.com/WPFD2011

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 8:16 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 8:02:03 PM

Quote :

"It sounds like one side of your mouth is saying, "When the government is doing illegitimate things, like it is now, secrecy is off the table." And then out of the other mouth I hear, "The government may be doing illegitimate things, but I'm still OK with keeping some secrets.""

One mouth, one message. It's obvious based on a public assessment of what our gov't is up to that it's rogue. Look at our international reputation. We torture. We invade countries based on false pretenses and cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. We do this while singing high praises of our own intentions (which are obviously not the real intentions behind the war).

We intervene all over the place, set up military bases, and do our best to work things in the favor of our corporations (foreign populations be damned).

I think any reasonable person can look at the state of US foreign policy and its consequences, and say "it's time USG become accountable to the public". In order for this to happen, the public needs to know what USG has been up to

Quote :

"OK, so apparently upholding their ability to do these things is bad, fuck soldiers' lives."

Soldiers' lives are important and should be spent only with great care and consideration. These wars have been anything but; remind me again why our soldiers are dying in Iraq?

That being said, what about civilian lives?

I just realized you misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't criticizing EMCE for working on defensive capabilities of vehicles (or whatever). I was criticizing him for defending USG's right to keep their naughty business away from us, especially after THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD HAS READ THEIR ACCOUNT.

Quote :

"The best way to reconcile all these different positions that I can come up with is that secrets about what misdirected us into the war are fair game, and secrets that hurt our guys during the war aren't, but I don't recall hearing many secrets in wikileaks about the former but I bet I could come up with a few about the latter. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm asking for clarification."

It's a really simple picture; once the government has gone off the rails as clearly as it has for as long as it has, then it has violated its right to secrecy. It has a right to keep its business secret so long as it's upholding the general interests of the citizens.

Quote :

" as far as i can tell, even the people ITT speaking out against the usefulness of the leaks aren't doing it because they don't desire incompetence and ass-covering to be exposed. I think it's safe to say most everyone supports transparency when it exposes that type of malfeasance. The problem many people have with Wikileak's is their nondiscrimination. Wikileaks is ostensibly saying, hey, it's all or nothing. "

FALSE. Wikileaks gave USG a chance to redact shit and they opted not to. Not that I agree with the shotgun approach but it's better than nothing. People here are arguing for "all good or nothing", and since "all good" is impossible, "nothing". In other words, they're arguing for sticking to the "business as usual", that being fleece the citizens to rape the third world. Not everybody feels okay with being a part of this.

Quote :

"i don't recall anyone saying they're concerned that the government looks bad"

The only thing I recall are a bunch of anti-Wikileaks people who haven't read Wikileaks. lmao

12/7/2010 8:55:19 PM

Australia closes the entire post office where Wikileaks has a PO Box.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/world-leaders-would-love-the-key-to-this-melbourne-po-box-but-wikileaks-wont-have-it-for-much-longer-20101206-18mul.html

12/7/2010 10:00:48 PM

Quote :

"It's obvious based on a public assessment of what our gov't is up to that it's rogue. Look at our international reputation. We torture. We invade countries based on false pretenses and cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. We do this while singing high praises of our own intentions (which are obviously not the real intentions behind the war)."

Sentence 1: Meaning what? The American public's assessment of the war? As far as I can tell, that assessment is that we're tired of playing and want to go home.

2: We're not accountable to the rest of the world. Uruguay doesn't vote on what we do. I'd like the rest of the world to go along with us, I'll work to try to see that they do, but if it comes down to a decision between what's right and what the rest of the world wants, fuck 'em. That isn't to say that what we're doing is right -- just that the rest of the world does not feature hugely in my calculation of what is and is not legitimate.

3) This is probably the case.

4) Maybe, maybe not. I think it's largely irrelevant. Let's say that the Pearl Harbor conspiracy folks are right. Let's say Roosevelt went out of his way to invite the Japanese to bomb us and then lie about it. The result was the destruction of empires of mass murderers. If we had to lie about it to fool the famously stupid -- you say so yourself -- American people, then so be it.

5) You have no way of demonstrating our "real intentions" aside from a bunch of rabble-rousing that uses the term "corporations."

Quote :

"It's a really simple picture; once the government has gone off the rails as clearly as it has for as long as it has, then it has violated its right to secrecy. It has a right to keep its business secret so long as it's upholding the general interests of the citizens. "

I have trouble reconciling this with the previous segment of your post. Here you seem to be saying that our government has violated its right to secrecy and, therefore, no longer has a right to secrets -- even those regarding "defensive capabilities of vehicles or whatever."

Time to shit or get off the pot. Either we've forfeited our right to secrecy and it's open season on American military personnel, or some secrecy is acceptable. Or, of course, you could come up with some way to reconcile these points of view that doesn't make you look like an angry hippie who doesn't like the government.

12/7/2010 10:38:22 PM

Apparently Assange has children. They, his parents, and lawyers have all received death threats on behalf of the United States.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/murder-threats-to-family-of-julian-assange/story-e6freuy9-1225966627536

The government is not to be trifled with. They will destroy your life, they will destroy your family, they will destroy your post office.

12/7/2010 10:38:34 PM

Oh, well if he and his people say it, it must be true.

Hell, for all I know that's all accurate, but so far all I see is his camp saying they're under fire. The fucking Klan says the same thing, and so as yet I'm unimpressed.

12/7/2010 10:53:19 PM