WikiLeaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

I am not saying that the release of the documents was the threat, but rather the fact that he said if you try to imprison or prosecute me, my 'friends' will release this info. If you do this, I will retaliate. That is a threat. Not sure how circular that logic is.

---

Again show me ONE quote from wikileaks or Assange saying he is going to retaliate. The guy voluntarily went into custody on the Swedish warrant and no one has released the password for the insurance file. Lots of political commentators want people to see the situation the way you describe it, but when you go looking for the evidence to support that viewpoint it is not there.

Quote:

---

As far as the banks, there is nothing he could release that would change anything.

---

First it was "grave and irreparable danger" and now nothing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Biko

Again show me ONE quote from wikileaks or Assange saying he is going to retaliate. The guy voluntarily went into custody on the Swedish warrant and no one has released the password for the insurance file. Lots of political commentators want people to see the situation the way you describe it, but when you go looking for the evidence to support that viewpoint it is not there.



First it was "grave and irreparable danger" and now nothing at all.

---

he turned him self in for the rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force in separate incidents he commited not the treason he comitted. Then after ducking that crime for all this time he wanted bail. On top of that he walked out of a TV interview when questioned about those crimes. Apparently he thinks what he wants kept secret should be kept secret but he can publish what he wants to publish.

Also as far as threats they not only have been made but several carried out when Visa, Mastercard were experienced hacker attacks when they stopped funneling money to further ***-anges attempt to help terrorists. Attackinga cyber site that was legally opting out is a crime. So much for his innocent journalism lies.

In 1992, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking this is not a journalist

Uh, I don't need much insight.

"2. Congress is also considering allowing gays to openly join and serve in the military. Considering the spy who leaked this info is a homosexual who had a hissy fit and decided leaking secret documents was the way to go can we allow them to serve if this is what can be expected?"

I think you put it out there for all to see. I'm not the one making stereotypical and bigotry-tinged remarks. But you got me! I'm a crazy uber-lefty commie who lives for coming to my favorite message board and calling people out in the name of homosexuals everywhere!!!!! They call me PC MAN!

"I am for the right of gays to serve in the military."

Then maybe consider editing your statements a bit better, because that pretty obviously comes off as against it or at least having serious doubts about it. Which isn't even the major issue.

It was less about whether you agree with it or not, as I would be willing to have a healthy debate about it were it just that. It was more your condescending and stereotypical tone about it that caused my reaction. See there are people who have folks they care about that get upset when people make crappy remarks like that...

Freudian slip, maybe. Honest mistake in sentence structure? I could maybe see that, but based on another thread where you came in guns a blazing and not thinking about what you type, or even reading source material in it's entirety before posting a flame about it, it's obvious that if nothing else, maybe you should slow down and think about things a bit before you post them.

The reality here is that though we are all friends through a common interest here, our differences vary beyond that. Calling you out on it has nothing to do with an issue with my own views as much as an issue with those close to me putting their lives on the line and then having other folks doubt their resolve. So yes, I DID take it personal.

Not sure about the rest of the post. It's so double talk and hypocritical I'll have to read it a few times to figure it out.

The reality is, were we at a meet, on 99% of things you and I and everyone here could probably have a beer, have some great conversation and debate some great questions (or just work on our rides). I'm not trying to make you out to be some kind of monster here, Circmand, I'm just letting you know that sometimes there are other people in the room, and those people may have someone they care about in harms way. I'm not saying you gotta be PC all the time, but when you start making insinuations about a whole group of people you also can't expect NOT to piss anyone off at all.

If I misread your intent, I apologize for calling you a bigot, but I can't see where that statement implied anything else.

To everyone else, I apologize for the off-topic rants.

Cheers,
Technocoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by circmand

not the treason he comitted.

---

Treason? Are you trolling? Come on, you can admit it. Not even a hardcore jingoist could believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by technocoy

Not sure about the rest of the post. It's so double talk and hypocritical I'll have to read it a few times to figure it out.

---

It was standard "some of my closest friends are black" defense. Troll or caricature I dunno, but off the charts funny either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by circmand

I was big into debate into school

---

Did you ever win any:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VXR

Did you ever win any:confused:

---

Yes even at the national level, mostly Lincoln Douglas.

As for the friends I wouldn't paste their names or numbers but I am secure in knowing I am right. They will enjoy this as well

Treason? Yes there is no doubt that the military individual who stole the secret documents violated his sworn oath he took and will be found guilty. Those here who have any legal background can vouch that if you knowngly participate by dispensing the data you have a high percentage of being convicted as aiding and abetting. Given Wikileaks actually knowlingly and willingly participated in the act of diseminating secret documents where they had to know sworn enemies of the US would access them that is an easy case to make. And doing this act can in no way be defended as journalism.

and Technocoy I have no hard feelings. Rereading my posts the use of hissy fit was a term that could have been replaced but I really couldnt think of a better term at the time. As for the rest I was simply putting forth an issue that will come up using the least amount of words so as not to sway it in one way or another so the responses that were received would show the predispositon of the responder. It is quite similar to an ink blot test. And trust me that arguement will be made by those against dont ask dont tell.

I feel its all a waste of time. Its all over the news and really its all crap. All it is is a way to distract people from how bad things really are. All our politicians are self serving and have little to no honor. They dont serve the people anymore. I hope this whole thing helps to weed out the losers we have in office and maybe it will bring people to the forefront who really do care about this country. People who are not worried about whats said about them or dug up ,because they have nothing to hide and what they have done or said was in the best interest of the people and not their bank accounts.
Wikileaks is wikiwack, but not as wack as the people who are worried about whats being leaked.
My 2 cents.
Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by circmand

Like any other spy both he and the soldier who fed him the info should be given a military trial and summarily executed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by circmand

That makes them guilty to. Kill them too. They may have access but they cant release it when they are dead or wont once they start dieing. This is simply extortion. Yu dont deal with terrorists you kill them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

The information he posts is still illegal, like it or not. There is no difference between what he is doing and if a bank robber gave you a bag of money, and you went and spent it knowing where it came from. It is still against the law!!

---

What's with all this posting of the cables being illegal stuff. It's only illegal because our government says it is. At one point is was illegal for blacks to marry whites... Just because big brother says it's illegal doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but its like a magic show, "Look over here, watch this hand", meanwhile, what is happening with the other hand? Its all too pretty.

---

I like that analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Biko

He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organizations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organization will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organization cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organization must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

---

You are a genius. I have to stop multi-quoting you...But I agree with majority of what you are saying. A+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

So if he were a citizen of a country that had legalized murder, it would be ok for him to murder Americans? Your logic or lack there of makes no sense. Once again, I go back to the bank robber analogy, lets say the stolen money given to you was Canadian, does it make it an more legal for you to spend it?

---

Marlin, you are debating with emotion and you are not making sense. Analogies are good for expressing feelings. Not when refuting facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

Don't get me wrong, I am against a big government... Its almost as if the whole thing is staged to allow the implementation of an internet censureship branch of the government. Add that up with TSA:
A few years ago, we threw a fit about taking off our shoes at the airport, now we would be grateful if that was it. How many bombs has TSA stopped? None. The only two in a decade that were stopped were stopped by the individual's error and other passengers. Now they want to add the scanners to sporting events, train/bus stations, and how many bombs have been exploded there? None. This is all a gambit to get the average idiot to accept control by the government.

---

Don't even get me started on TSA! It's a joke! I was a flight attendant and dealt with them multiple times a day. That's a whole other thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

We are condoning illegal actions (immigration)

---

Immigration is NOT illegal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by circmand

Apparently you have some insight no one else does that allows you to see into my mind on how I feel and how I think. However it doesnt seem to be working or you are transferring your own issues on to me because you are unwilling to face them. I was big into debate into school. For those like the poster here that do not understand debate you are given an issue and the side you need to argue. Whether you agree or not you must argue that side. Thta being said the best way to win your side is to figure out what points the other side will argue and have a counter to that point. Crying and yelling and calling names will NOT win a debate no matter how much you do it. Only well thought out arguements and points count.

Now while I am under no obligation to defend myself against unsubstantiated name calling I will list a few points. I am for the right of gays to serve in the military. I once lived with for several years several homosexuals. We had a great time we got along great we often had debates of this nature without any of us being offended and remain friends over 20 years later. Perhaps you can call my friends up and tell them you have deduced I hate gays without having met me and after their 20+ years of association with me they are too stupid to realize.

Actually the most idiotic statement I ever read is the one in your post. How you are so offended although you are not gay. Because for you to be so offended by something that does not affect you directly but still feel the need to point out you are not gay really says something about you. Do you feel homosexuals are so unable to defend themselves that they need you to rush to their defense? IF you think they cannot defend themselves in a debate of ideas I have to think you really dont beleive they can defend themselves in battle.

I actually dont beleive that is the case however. I think you are just another liberal who thinks they know everything. If you disagree with Obama you are a racist. If you dont want to pay higher taxes for entitlement programs you hate the elderly or the poor or the children etc. Liberals always have these urges to put in place feel good programs that cost a fortune never solve the problem then want to throw away more money and god forbid if someone questions why you resort to calling names. I guess the elite liberals resort to calling names because us stoopid conservatives wouldnt understand your facts if you ever bothered to state them. (BTW I spelled Stupid incorrectly on purpose as sarcasm. I felt I should state that as liberals never seem to have a sense of humor or understand sarcasm)

---

Thanks for the Speech 101 lesson Professor. I think in English 102 they teach you how to write without coming off as a major blockhead...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Biko

Again show me ONE quote from wikileaks or Assange saying he is going to retaliate. The guy voluntarily went into custody on the Swedish warrant and no one has released the password for the insurance file. Lots of political commentators want people to see the situation the way you describe it, but when you go looking for the evidence to support that viewpoint it is not there.



First it was "grave and irreparable danger" and now nothing at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VXR

Did you ever win any:confused:

---

:laughing:



Seeing all of the stuff that's going on and how others are freaking out about it sometimes makes me chuckle. It's like our government has gone Jerry Springer...

Well, being retired military and me last job was working in a vault as a plans writer, I can't believe one PFC had sole access to this amount of data. That said, he and who ever leaked this should be tried for espionage and hung if convicted.

As far as the comment about a gay hissy fit. Maybe he was gay, and maybe he was being blackmailed which has happened many times to gays in key positions. If he could of serve openly, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

As far as Julian Assange is concerned, personally I'd like to shot the bastard, but legally he hasn't done anything wrong as I'm being led to believe. If an exception is made, then throw the constitution out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VXIRONwoMAN

Marlin, you are debating with emotion and you are not making sense. Analogies are good for expressing feelings. Not when refuting facts.



Immigration is NOT illegal!



Thanks for the Speech 101 lesson Professor. I think in English 102 they teach you how to write without coming off as a major blockhead...





:laughing:


...

---

When liberals start losing on the facts they resort to calling names or trotting out their favorite poor victim. As for English 102 I'll see you there when they start teaching the difference between facts and feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by circmand

When liberals start losing on the facts they resort to calling names

---

Like "***-ange" when you clearly meant A.s.s-ange?

Quote:

---

or trotting out their favorite poor victim.

---

Like using the "treason" non-sequitor to paint the US as a victim of "***-ange?"

Quote:

---

As for English 102 I'll see you there when they start teaching the difference between facts and feelings.

---

High irony from someone who bases his claims on the assumed support of people "here who have any legal background."

Per the census website, there were 12 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2007. Probably a safe bet to put it somewhere in the low 20 millions now. So yes, immigration is legal, but when someone mentions immigrants and legalities, it is clearly understood by all what is actually meant.

A quote from a recent movie I saw seems appropriate.

"It isn't what it is, Tommy. It is never what it is. It is what it can be made to look like."

That most people nowadays are aware that "spin" is the name of the game makes it difficult to understand how so many can still be distracted. Does is not seem odd that the main coverage of most of the story tends to focus on the leaks themselves rather than the content of the leaks? If all that stuff hadn't happened in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Anyone using the argument that "everyone" talks about people behind their backs, so why should politicians be held accountable is conveniently overlooking the fact that talking about people behind their backs is still wrong. In my personal experience, the people who use that argument are the people who do it most, and are just trying to justify their own actions by perpetuating the myth that "everyone" does it. Using the argument that leaks may cause collateral damage is also overlooking the collateral damage that has already occured as exposed in the leaks.

When the people who are the subjects of the leaks reach such positions of "power" and affluence, and begin to be too overly esteemed because of their position or how much money they make, it seems it's all too quickly forgotten that they are still working for us, and are supposed to be representing us in the best light possible. Well I don't know about the rest of you, but my elected leaders indirectly making me look like an @&& in the eyes of residents of the nations of the rest of the world got old a LONG time ago.

There's no reason whatsoever that I should be expected to continue granting the illusions they would prefer to those who obviously have no respect for me as so clearly illustrated by their actions. That people like that resort to intimidation and character assassination tactics when exposed says more about them than it does the people they are trying to attack. Doesn't it seem rather convenient that the "sexual assault" allegations should have become so newsworthy at the precise time that they did? Sexual assault is in quotes by the way because the actual charge is based around a condom breaking. "Sex by surprise" was the actual charge. Consentual, but now an issue because the condom broke. Trumped up for the purpose of sensationalization and distraction? One has to wonder.

The question to me is whether Wikileaks is just filling a much needed and overdue niche. One where whistleblowers can turn when the established avenue still leaves a lot to be desired. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a good start, but it's nowhere near what is needed, and anyone who has ever held a job where they've witnessed unfair/questionable business or managerial practices but did nothing for fear of losing their job, the prospect of future jobs, or even worse, knows the potential long-term reality of such situations...the Mel Gibson movie The Edge of Darkness from which that initial quote was taken being such an example. Power and affluence run amok, but not let off the hook because exposure was simply the right thing to do.

True, they do work for us, yet they make FAR more than their employers. Doesn't make sense if the employee makes more than the boss? Especially if the employee controls their own salary?