WikiLeaks

[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.

[Stephen Biko]

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.

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.

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

There is zero legal precedent for your interpretation.

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.

[technocoy]

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.