WikiLeaks

[Stephen Biko]

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.

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.

[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!!

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.

[Stephen Biko]

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?

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.

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.

[Marlin]

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?

[Marlin]

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.

[Stephen Biko]

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?

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.

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."

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.

[Marlin]

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 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.

[vt_maverick]

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.

[Marlin]

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?