WikiLeaks

Whats your opinions on this then guys??? Just wondering as the leaked info was from US embassy's etc. Looks like theres all out 'online' warfare at the moment with Mastercard, Visa and paypal all being hacked and shut down for different periods of time. its quite serious really!! All this in protest to companies backing away and unassociating themselves from Julian Assange !!!!

There are a load of US supporting hackers that intern hacked the other guys and managed to shut them down for a couple of hours!!!

So, do you think the wikileaks should be stopped???? Can be putting peoples lives at risk and i know a few of you are in the forces!

Nations, companies, and individuals all have good reasons to keep secrets. This Assange guy fancies himself as some sort of freedom of information Robin Hood, when all he really does is feed the media machine while destabilizing international diplomacy. I think this clip from our Saturday Night Live comedy show gives a pretty accurate analogy:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...-open/1263417/

That said, the real problem here is that there are apparently plenty of individuals with access to sensitive information who are willing to sell out their country. People tend to think that leaks most often happen when hackers gain access to classified computer networks, when in reality most leaks are caused by people willfully distributing the information. Hopefully this crisis encourages government agencies to re-examine how they select and monitor employees with access to classified data.

2 fingers to point.

1 - Assange. You dig in Big Dog's backyard and steal his bone, be prepared to be bitten.

2 - The Big Dog. Hide your bone better. This a the Information Age.... what the hell do you expect.

I'll bet 500 12 year old northern European hackers had this information YEARS ago. Assange just got caught.

Like any other spy both he and the soldier who fed him the info should be given a military trial and summarily executed. The so called journalism freedom would not even be a consideration before our PC run amok era. Journalist do not have the freedom to print secret documents.

However this does raise 2 issues;

1. Congress is considering giving journalists a shield law that protects them and only relies on their own judgement and self policing. Does this prove they can not be trusted to self police?

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 consider Julian a hero. There's no way they can stop this now. WikiLeaks is mirrored in hundreds of locations around the world.

Here's one mirror if you've never seen this stuff- http://wikileaks.ch

Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing any government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.

These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.

No one has ever been harmed by anything they released. Even in the past when spies have been named, they just get a new identity and disappear.

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deermagnet

Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing and government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.

---

I bet he does have it, and keeps it right beside the President's Book of Secrets and the Ark of the Convenant. :rolleyes: I guarantee you it won't take years to break the code, and I doubt very seriously anything in that file will change the world. Despite leaks, wars, etc., governments still execute their business in the same way they did 3000 years ago, so there's no reason to believe it will change over one file. Sounds like a conveniently timed myth to keep the media interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deermagnet

These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.

---

"Hack-proof" is a pipe dream. That's like saying doctors should have made the world disease-free by now. Hackers find holes and exploit them; security experts close the holes and develop new ways to track the hackers; hackers find new ways to evade detection and in turn find new holes. It's an arms race fought in cyberspace. Nothing will ever be hack-proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deermagnet

No one has ever been harmed by anything they released.

---

Come on Mom, why can't I play football in the street? No one's hit me so far! :rolleyes:

Consider this scenario: North Korea knows it has enemies in the West, and the overwhelming disapproval of the international community for it's nuclear program. Until now they've felt safe in China's shadow, assured that any attack by South Korea or the US would be repulsed not only by their Army, but also by the overwhelming air power of the Chinese Air Force.

Then Wikileaks releases diplomatic messages indicating that the Chinese might turn their back on North Korea in a conflict, and may already be working out a plan with the US on how to handle the aftermath. Where does that leave the North Korean government? Unable to rely on a superpower's protection but unwilling to back down from their conflict with the South, they have to choose one of two directions: (1) back down on all fronts to avoid a conflict (unlikely), or (2) become more belligerent and aim to do the most civilian damage possible since the situation is hopeless anyway.

It's easy to cast all governments and politicians as inherently evil and naively believe that truth conquers all. But the reality is that governments need to be able to discuss matters in a private context to achieve any honest dialogue and to ensure proper context behind any official release. For example, the quotes from Chinese diplomats regarding North Korea may very well be the ramblings of a disenchanted public servant, rather than the feeling of the Chinese government as a whole. But without that context North Korea might assume those opinions to be official (but disavowed) Chinese policy and execute option #2 above.

If Assange wants to leak stuff, let him leak stuff going on now in 10 years. By then it's less likely to cause a conflict, but still recent enough to generate the change he purports to advocate. Does anyone really believe that a file capable of "changing the world" would be irrelevant in 10 years?

If you think for one second so low ranked enlisted guy had access to dimplomatic cables, you are wrong. The kid that is imprisoned right now gave him the video of the journalists being killed and some other minor stuff, this stuff coming out came from much higher.

I am waiting to see what happens as they pull the string to find out where it all came from.
I can't get anything in or out where I work, and we only go to Confidential, way low on the totem of information security. We can't even bring in radios that have any feature other than AM/FM. No alarm, no digital display...we have been this way for a few years. Wherever this stuff is coming from, it came from the upper eschelon of access.

Marlin, I am sure things have changed some since my time in but as an E2 I had the highest security clearance available. As our equipment got older and less "secret" they slowly downgraded the clearance as needed. Of course we didn't have computers back then either...good old paper!

Billy's on the money. No matter how high up the food chain these cables were originally written, there's almost always an intern / coffee-chaser who is asked to carry papers from one office to another. That's all it takes.

Careful fellers. Our securtiy office indicated that if anyone is caught accessing wikileaks from a government computer, your clearance could be revoked. It may apply to contractors as well. It's not likely that they are monitoring it close enough to catch anyone but I sure ain't taking any chances.

Honestly though, I haven't even been curious enough about what's been posted to go out & look. Personally I consider Julian Assange a waste of perfectly good sperm and hope that he disappears into anonymity very soon.

Quote:

---

Honestly though, I haven't even been curious enough about what's been posted to go out & look. Personally I consider Julian Assange a waste of perfectly good sperm and hope that he disappears into anonymity very soon.

---

Well said. While I think there is a positive side to journalists trying to uncover the truth(coverups and such for example), I do not even remotely trust them to properly handle sensitive information they may come across in the course of their work. I absolutely don't trust their moral compass to keep critical information secret if they feel they can make a quick buck or further their own career over it either. Look at any "good intentioned" weapon mankind has ever tried to make or harness. It always inevitably gets used for nefarious purposes sooner or later. This stuff is no different. This guy is no Robin Hood, he's the one that opened pandoras box, and no good will come of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triathlete

Marlin, I am sure things have changed some since my time in but as an E2 I had the highest security clearance available. As our equipment got older and less "secret" they slowly downgraded the clearance as needed. Of course we didn't have computers back then either...good old paper!

---

I was not referring to the clearance level, but rather the accessibility to the information. I have secret clearance, but no access to it. You have to have a special computer, in a vaulted room where no PED (personal electronic device) are allowed. I just can't see this private having the access to those types of communications. The spread of the topics would be more like things saved on an entire server or encrypted digital vault of some type.

I am sure that Ash is right about some assistant maybe having access, and they do have those at the Pentagon level, they are called 06s. Guys that are in command of entire units in the field, and some congressman's aid on shore duty.

If a command was allowing E2s to be able to access a broad spectrum of info to this level, then we deserve any fallout that may arise, and those in charge should be held accountable for those repercussions.

We were talking about this at work today, the whole thing seems too convenient, 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.

This whole information age is so very tacky. I think people need to take a little more responsibility for themselves and try to have a little integrity, and that definitely applies to journalists as well as politicians. I wonder how much comfort freedom of the press will give him when his work gets people killed.

It's all pretty depressing, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deermagnet

I consider Julian a hero. There's no way they can stop this now. WikiLeaks is mirrored in hundreds of locations around the world.

---

Of course not kill him anyhow make him your martyr. Its like the death penalty at least he wont ever do it again

[/QUOTE]Here's one mirror if you've never seen this stuff- http://wikileaks.ch[/QUOTE]

just because some of stuff isnt that sensitive doesnt mean other stuff isnt. He released names of people who told us where terrorists were planning attacks and murders of children. This hero allows them to continue to kill children. Yeah I underrstand why you like him so much he is a child killer

[/QUOTE]Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing any government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.[/QUOTE]

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]These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.[/QUOTE]

Really? How smart do you have to be to have someone copy informaion from a file and paste it into a new location?

[/QUOTE]No one has ever been harmed by anything they released. Even in the past when spies have been named, they just get a new identity and disappear.[/QUOTE]

And your proof of this statement is? You know all the thousands and thousands of pages of info linked and you know every name mentioned and have checked on their well being and personally know and have verified that everyone is safe do you? I hope I dont have to explain to you why that statement is ludicrous.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Creeping authoritarianism has destroyed the rule of law when speech is considered terrorism.

It is important to understand the purpose of the "insurance" file - it isn't 'extortion' to insure that Assange or others won't be killed or prosecuted, it is to insure that all of the information that has been leaked to wikileaks is published. That's a promise the wikileaks organization made to any and all whistle-blowers - if you risk your butt to get the information to wikileaks, they absolutely promise to make sure it gets published. They would prefer to review it and edit it for safety first, but if the wikileaks organization is somehow disrupted, they intend to keep their word if it's the last thing they do.

That's not to say plenty of political pundits have sensationalized the insurance file, but neither wikileaks nor Assange have made any threats about using it for retaliation.

Quote:

---

And your proof of this statement is? You know all the thousands and thousands of pages of info linked and you know every name mentioned and have checked on their well being and personally know and have verified that everyone is safe do you? I hope I dont have to explain to you why that statement is ludicrous.

---

Really its ludicrous to claim that people have died as a result when even the Pentagon's own review found otherwise. The wikileaks organization has gone to great pains to redact that kind of information from the documents they publish. In cases where the government has released the same documents under FOIA it's turned out that wikileaks did an even more thorough job of removing potentially sensitive information than the pentagon did.

But, ultimately wikileaks is not about leaking information. It's about fighting conspiracies. Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays explaining the motivation for the creation of wikileaks. Assange's operational plan is a form of jiu-jitsu.

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.

The US government is not his only target, it's just the one that's currently getting the most press.

Furthermore, plenty of legitimate public figures in the business of government and security have expressed support for Assange and Wikileaks include Ron Paul, Daniel Esllberg (of the Pentagon Papers), Veterans for Peace president Mike Ferner, former long-time CIA counter-terrorism expert Michael Scheuer, Republican congressman Connie Mack of Florida and former Australian Prime Minister (currently Foreign Minister) Kevin Rudd just for starters.

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!!

He is knowingly publishing classified information, it is a form of terrorism.

Let's say you murdered someone, and then told the police that if they tried to arrest you or investigate the crime, you would kill their family, that is the same thing he is doing with his "poison pill", we should not negotiate with hostage takers...it sets a bad example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

It is still against the law!!

---

Except it is not. He's not an american citizen and not subject to american laws. Furthermore it isn't necessarily illegal for american citizens to publish classified information, see New York Times vs United States. Finally, if that line of reasoning is true, why aren't the newspapers like The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times that are also publishing the same information equally culpable?

Quote:

---

He is knowingly publishing classified information, it is a form of terrorism.

---

No, at worst it is espionage. Over use of the terrorism label just waters down the meaning of the word.

Quote:

---

we should not negotiate with hostage takers...it sets a bad example.

---

Wikileaks is NOT negotiating - the information is going to be released no matter what. The insurance file's purpose is to insure the "no matter what" part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Biko

No, at worst it is espionage. Over use of the terrorism label just waters down the meaning of the word.

Playing semantics does not change the fact that it is wrong, terrorism, espionage, the fact that you know what I mean is enough.

Wikileaks is NOT negotiating - the information is going to be released no matter what. The insurance file's purpose is to insure the "no matter what" part.
This is in direct contradiction to what was posted earlier about how well they (wikileaks) has done by scrubbing their info to minimize risk to others. So they are threatening to release non-scrubbed info? Still a threat, still holding information hostage.

---

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?

I just readthrough the Wiki you posted and you are incorrect about the concept of the publishing of classified info:

The most recent incarnation of the exception was the grave and probable danger rule, established in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). During this case, the wording was changed to the grave and irreparable danger standard. The idea behind the numerous versions of the rule is that if a certain message will likely cause a “grave and irreparable” danger to the American public when expressed, then the message’s prior restraint could be considered an acceptable infringement of civil liberties. The Supreme Court was therefore charged with determining if the Government had sufficiently met the “burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint”

This is exactly the goal of wikileaks, as stated by themselves, that these documents would topple banks (the ones that needed 9 trillion in aid or else our economy would fail), and cripple government operations. They stated on their own one thing that is actually not legal and could result in censure.

Don't get me wrong, I am against a big government, there are so many leeches (you democrats know who you are ;) ), but what he is doing is wrong. I think the government threatening folks for even looking at the documents is ridiculous, but to say that Assange is a hero is out there and just plain ridiculous. 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.

Any man willing to trade freedom for safety deserves neither.-Ben Franklin. Give me my guns, my helmetless motorcycle riders, my caffeine impregnated alcoholic drink (rum and coke) and let me make my own choices. Give me warnings (like on cigarattes) and set me free. Hold me accountable for my choices (no public healthcare for lung cancer ridden smokers, fatty heart attack victims and so on)
So in a way, I agree with your point of view, just not when it comes to this douche clown.
There is more at risk than some hokey internet prank.

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.

---

The community has been that way for decades, and I think it's safe to say that our government is no closer to either curbing its tendencies or collapsing.

I just thought of something funny, Anonymous, is all about the transparency of information and no secrecy, yet ironically they will not share their identity or their plans? Transparency of info for everyone except them?

Quote:

---

So if he were a citizen of a country that had legalized murder, it would be ok for him to murder Americans?

---

Murder is universally recognized as being "not ok" so that's not a valid analogy. Let's turn the tables - if an american living in America were to publish Chinese classified materials would that be OK?

Quote:

---

So they are threatening to release non-scrubbed info? Still a threat, still holding information hostage.

---

Is the fact that a bee has a stinger a threat? There is no intent to threaten anyone. Wikileaks' intent is to keep the promise they made to the whistleblowers - not to save their own butts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

The idea behind the numerous versions of the rule is that if a certain message will likely cause a "grave and irreparable"� danger to the American public when expressed, then the message's prior restraint could be considered an acceptable infringement of civil liberties.
...
This is exactly the goal of wikileaks, as stated by themselves, that these documents would topple banks (the ones that needed 9 trillion in aid or else our economy would fail), and cripple government operations.

---

Don't over-generalize "grave and irreparable" danger - "too big to fail" is just a political catch phrase not a legal term. Similarly the failure of some government operations needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Very few of them would qualify as "grave an irreparable."

Quote:

---

I just thought of something funny, Anonymous, is all about the transparency of information and no secrecy, yet ironically they will not share their identity or their plans? Transparency of info for everyone except them?

---

Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of individuals - all of their plans are made in public and anyone can join - if you want to be part of Anonymous all you have to do is say you are. They are not centralized, there is no members-only secret website, membership rules or even a members list. Not all of Anonymous even agrees with anything other parts of Anonymous do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Biko

Murder is universally recognized as being "not ok" so that's not a valid analogy. Let's turn the tables - if an american living in America were to publish Chinese classified materials would that be OK?

No it wouldn't be ok...and we haven't done that, but at least you get the point
Is the fact that a bee has a stinger a threat? There is no intent to threaten anyone. Wikileaks' intent is to keep the promise they made to the whistleblowers - not to save their own butts.

A bee never threatened anyone(well, except the african honey bee), they don't go out and attack other creatures and threaten retribution if they are forced to face any consequences. Good retort though, I like it (honestly, no sarcasm, I thoroughly enjoy good logic sparring)


Don't over-generalize "grave and irreparable" danger - "too big to fail" is just a political catch phrase not a legal term. Similarly the failure of some government operations needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Very few of them would qualify as "grave an irreparable."

I think 9 trillion in loans is enough to qualify as irreparable. If it wasn't true, you would have to send the Fed (which is NOT A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, to jail for unfair lending practices)

Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of individuals - all of their plans are made in public and anyone can join - if you want to be part of Anonymous all you have to do is say you are. They are not centralized, there is no members-only secret website, membership rules or even a members list. Not all of Anonymous even agrees with anything other parts of Anonymous do.
And to this one I throw the B u l l s h i t flag. Every group has its leaders, regardless of the forum. If you think for a second that there aren't a few old schoolers that drive the party, you are very ignorant, which I doubt based on your responses. Just look at our forum, there are a few that kind of "run the show". This is just a small truck forum, imagine how bad it must be on some geeky hacker forum:rolleyes: The senior guys say go, the NUBs just follow. Tis human nature. If no one was in charge, nothing would ever happen.

---

There is always someone in charge. Do some research on the Rothchilds, Queen of england...there are a few families that have more money combined than the the rest of the 95% of the world put together. I am a fan of prisonplanet.com.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlin

Quote:

---

if an american living in America were to publish Chinese classified materials would that be OK?

---

No it wouldn't be ok...and we haven't done that, but at least you get the point

---

Seems to be OK with the US government if a Chinese citizen does it.

Quote:

---

A bee never threatened ... retribution if they are forced to face any consequences.

---

You are assuming your own premise. Wikileaks has never made a threat. It is circular logic to say it is a threat just because you say it's a threat. You choose to view their actions in a certain light and ignore their own published goals. There is not a single statement from wikileaks or Assange regarding the insurance file that suggests a threat. You are encouraged to quote one to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

I think 9 trillion in loans is enough to qualify as irreparable.

---

There is zero legal precedent for your interpretation.

Quote:

---

Every group has its leaders, regardless of the forum.

---

I'm sure Anonymous has plenty of little sub-groups with more formalized structures, but the group as a whole is completely fluid. You can read up on their inherent lack of structure.

Look at you Crotchrocket. You sneaky dog. You done threw a molotov and ran!!!! Hahahah.

You know, I'm not sure where I'm at yet with the Assange thing. I know there are a lot of variables at play, and there is a lot of grey area.

I want to see what he has on the banks. That's the kind of information I would like to see keeping these bastards honest. I find it funny that when he announced the bank leak is when all the congressmen really found that it was all of a sudden an emergency to shut this guy down. Self-preservation at work maybe?

What I do know, is that someone's bigot flag just flew.

"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?"

Really? I mean, REALLY?

First of all I can respect nearly every point of view so far in this thread. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can respect them.

This however is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. It personally offends me, and I'm not even gay. Not because you support don't ask don't tell necessarily. I think there was a time where it protected gays more than anything else. More because your statement tells a lot about your character and decision making.

WTF does the person in question being gay have to do with why they chose to leak the information? You know how many things have been leaked over the years by straight folks? Oh wait, pretty much ALL of it. Should we ban straight folks from serving because they obviously are easier to make into spies? Your logic is quite silly and morally idiotic.

Anyone can feel wronged or feel they are doing something just that other don't agree with, straight people included. I don't know enough about the leaker to make any more judgement than that. It's the broader implication here I want to speak to.

ANY person that has the strength and capacity to serve his or her country in the military should be allowed. If they are brave enough to go fight and possibly die for the land and people they love then they are alright by me. PERIOD. Through the years our fighting force has only gotten better, stronger and smarter and has constantly become more and more diversified.

I can promise you, having several very close gay and lesbian friends (two of which have served in the military on hazard duty) that they are not trying to sneak up from behind on some straight dude/dudette. They are gay and like other gay people, most can't even identify with the majority of straight people. If anything, they should toss out the idiots who CAN'T deal with it because it seems to me they can't mentally compete with even the most basic pressure or stress. I bet that when my buddy helped a group of soldiers survive an ambush in a back alley of baghdad they didn't question his resolve and they damn sure didn't take back their appreciation when they found out he was gay.

The sad thing is that because of don't ask don't tell he served 3 tours at a year each and wasn't able to tell his partner how much he cared for them on the phone for fear of being thrown out, and often feared calling them at all. He couldn't talk about his loved ones when sharing stories about missing home with his fellow soldiers. He was isolated from the person he loved much more than his fellow soldiers, yet he still performed his job admirably and above the bar.

He took two shots for his country in his time there and he did it all while feeling like he was being **** on by the very people he was protecting. That's how much he loves his country. He did all this for his friends, family, fellow Americans and all the sorry bigoted asses that have been so quick to condemn people because they are different. That in my opinion makes him a bigger man that most.

If someone is so weird and weak-minded that all they can think about while in the service is about how someone else goes about having sex, maybe they need their head examined. They are certainly a pervert. Do you also sit around imagining your squadmate getting it off with his girlfriend? Is that soothing vs stressful? Does that increase moral vs decrease? Jesus Christ.

I definitely don't find a person like that strong-minded and intelligent enough to fight along those that can.

I truly hope that if you are ever in a life threatening situation with a homosexual fighting at your side that A: they don't take a break to ask if you're straight, and B: they don't see your true colors.

I'll post more about Assange when I'm not so disgusted at the hypocrisy I'm seeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crotchrocket

Whats your opinions on this then guys???

---

do you see what you have done:yesb:

ooooops, i'll get my coat :whiteflag:

best start reading all this above! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Biko

Seems to be OK with the US government if a Chinese citizen does it.

You are assuming your own premise. Wikileaks has never made a threat. It is circular logic to say it is a threat just because you say it's a threat. You choose to view their actions in a certain light and ignore their own published goals. There is not a single statement from wikileaks or Assange regarding the insurance file that suggests a threat. You are encouraged to quote one to prove otherwise.

There is zero legal precedent for your interpretation.


I'm sure Anonymous has plenty of little sub-groups with more formalized structures, but the group as a whole is completely fluid. You can read up on their inherent lack of structure.

---

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.

As far as the banks, there is nothing he could release that would change anything. They took 9 trillion dollars in virtually interest free loans!!!!!! If that isn't enough to topple them, then nothing is. 9 trillion, that is like half of our deficit, all to one group of people, who turned around and paid their CEOs ridiculous sums of money with it. JPM controls the price of silver by selling silver they don't have, the banks are gobbling up land one piece at a time. Soon that land will belong to government.

We bailed out failing auto companies, and let them keep their unions, the mos crippling facet of their whole process.

We GIVE away billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries that don't even like us.

We are condoning illegal actions (immigration)

What more do you need to topple an empire? Americans are passive, touchy feely, *******. We are so engaged on PC BS, making everything fair, making everything safe, that we have forgotten what is important. Freedom and Justice.

We are at a point where if someone doesn't tell you what to do, then you won't do it.

As I said, I think we share similar views, just not on this specific topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by technocoy

What I do know, is that someone's bigot flag just flew.

"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?"

Really? I mean, REALLY?

First of all I can respect nearly every point of view so far in this thread. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can respect them.

This however is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. It personally offends me, and I'm not even gay. Not because you support don't ask don't tell necessarily. I think there was a time where it protected gays more than anything else. More because your statement tells a lot about your character and decision making.

WTF does the person in question being gay have to do with why they chose to leak the information? You know how many things have been leaked over the years by straight folks? Oh wait, pretty much ALL of it. Should we ban straight folks from serving because they obviously are easier to make into spies? Your logic is quite silly and morally idiotic.

Anyone can feel wronged or feel they are doing something just that other don't agree with, straight people included. I don't know enough about the leaker to make any more judgement than that. It's the broader implication here I want to speak to.

ANY person that has the strength and capacity to serve his or her country in the military should be allowed. If they are brave enough to go fight and possibly die for the land and people they love then they are alright by me. PERIOD. Through the years our fighting force has only gotten better, stronger and smarter and has constantly become more and more diversified.

I can promise you, having several very close gay and lesbian friends (two of which have served in the military on hazard duty) that they are not trying to sneak up from behind on some straight dude/dudette. They are gay and like other gay people, most can't even identify with the majority of straight people. If anything, they should toss out the idiots who CAN'T deal with it because it seems to me they can't mentally compete with even the most basic pressure or stress. I bet that when my buddy helped a group of soldiers survive an ambush in a back alley of baghdad they didn't question his resolve and they damn sure didn't take back their appreciation when they found out he was gay.

The sad thing is that because of don't ask don't tell he served 3 tours at a year each and wasn't able to tell his partner how much he cared for them on the phone for fear of being thrown out, and often feared calling them at all. He couldn't talk about his loved ones when sharing stories about missing home with his fellow soldiers. He was isolated from the person he loved much more than his fellow soldiers, yet he still performed his job admirably and above the bar.

He took two shots for his country in his time there and he did it all while feeling like he was being **** on by the very people he was protecting. That's how much he loves his country. He did all this for his friends, family, fellow Americans and all the sorry bigoted asses that have been so quick to condemn people because they are different. That in my opinion makes him a bigger man that most.

If someone is so weird and weak-minded that all they can think about while in the service is about how someone else goes about having sex, maybe they need their head examined. They are certainly a pervert. Do you also sit around imagining your squadmate getting it off with his girlfriend? Is that soothing vs stressful? Does that increase moral vs decrease? Jesus Christ.

I definitely don't find a person like that strong-minded and intelligent enough to fight along those that can.

I truly hope that if you are ever in a life threatening situation with a homosexual fighting at your side that A: they don't take a break to ask if you're straight, and B: they don't see your true colors.
.

---

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)

whats wikileaks....???
I think everything that is on the internet is real..lol.... if you make a big deal out of it ..then more people will want to know what its about ..so lets try to get everyone involved by making a big deal about it ...if they did it the old way ..one one would care and the persons involved would some how end up having a accident or heat atact.and it would be over .lets see wiki leaks has been doing this for how long and now they are doing something about it ..lol
get real
..thx gang....

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.