When is it okay to publicy call for someones death? [Archive] - Debate Policy

Noir

12-07-2010, 04:18 AM

When you're directing it towards Mr. Assange

(taken from an open letter to the Austrailian government.)

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html

NightTrain

12-07-2010, 04:29 AM

Noir

12-07-2010, 04:39 AM

People that play Assange's game of exposing State secrets and playing the dangerous game that he's engaged himself in usually disappear.

I suspect Assange will be no different. He's chosen his course.

Indeed, it's not really something you expect from a liberal free democracy, but I've no doubt it goes on.

But the very fact that mainstream news outlets and high profile commentators have no hesitation and fear no repocussions for calling for someones death is quite disturbing IMO.

NightTrain

12-07-2010, 04:45 AM

Noir

12-07-2010, 05:39 AM

Spies have usually been executed throughout history, Noir.

The only difference here is that Assange gained American secret communications and broadcast it to the world instead of selling it to the Soviets.

And that difference is a massive one. He is no more a spy than I am. Or indeed more than anyone who has read and passed on a leaked document.

PostmodernProphet

12-07-2010, 07:59 AM

Gaffer

12-07-2010, 08:50 AM

In answer to the title of this thread I would say, when your a muslim.

I only saw a few death threats for him and those seemed to be an execution following a trial. Most are just calling him a terror supporter. His name is well known now and people are watching, therefore he will stay alive for some time. He's not only giving secrets and embarrassing America. He's doing it to the rest of the world too. His life expectancy is about that of an investigative journalist in russia.

Notice he's releasing things in episodes.Tune in next week for the episode on banking.

He's hiding out in the most politically correct country in the world. He's wanted for sex charges in Sweden? not espionage or anything like that. The whole thing is like a bad sitcom.

Nukeman

12-07-2010, 08:56 AM

And that difference is a massive one. He is no more a spy than I am. Or indeed more than anyone who has read and passed on a leaked document.
is it really a MASSIVE difference??? Just because he didn't "sell" the information to enemies of the state, he sure as hell made it ALL available to them.... Which is worse doing something for monetary gain or doing it out of malice....

What purpose does he have for putting this information out there??? I would also add the blackmail/extortion charge to him for his "if i'm arrested I will release all this OTHER information"....

revelarts

12-07-2010, 10:25 AM

I don't know his purpose. but it serve the cause of transparency in gov't.
most here complain about the gov't growth an move toward tyranny. One of the classic tools of an tyrannical state is the over use of Classification of documents. there's a nonprofit that track it here in the U.S. and they say that there's been a huge up tick in secret top secret info over the past 15 yrs or so. And problems getting items FOIAed out of the gov't hands.

we've had several other people in the u.s. release items ,
the Pentagon Papers
the Watergate tapes
All of those groups/people who released those confidential items are still alive and well.
There are other sites that leak documents and there are people we call whistle blowers who bring various gov't and corporate corruption and misdeeds to light.
The only people who call for their deaths are those that are guilty of sometime.

So far, what they've done has caused know ones death. And the pentagon admits it.

And dont forget that wikileaks/Assange is the one that released the Climate gate e-mails as well other interesting items (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Leaks).
He seems to be an equal opportunity leaker.

But it is dangerous whenever Powerful people are embarrassed, and exposed.

Congress people and Pundants Calling for his murder is no better than the Muslim leaders calling for a fatwa on someone who offended Muhammad.

If he's committed a crime arrest him and bring him to trail.
But you have to be careful what you do with him becuase, they claim to be a an alternative NEWS site. if you bring wikileaks to trial (or cause them to have an "accident") where does that put all other news agencies and reporters that report on "secret docs".?

Thunderknuckles

12-07-2010, 10:57 AM

Indeed, it's not really something you expect from a liberal free democracy, but I've no doubt it goes on.

But the very fact that mainstream news outlets and high profile commentators have no hesitation and fear no repocussions for calling for someones death is quite disturbing IMO.
I'm with you on that Noir. Calling for the death of someone should not be tolerated in the US. However, calling for an ass whoopin' is OK in my book :p

revelarts

12-07-2010, 11:09 AM

You know this is funny, cool and scary. But scary like the 1st time down a rollercoster.
My imagination goes wild a bit here.

Some people have mentioned
REVOLUTION
and
SECESSION
as possible ways to get the gov't in check. but on some IT sites I've read I wonder if the people with the power to get the gov'ts and fat cat corporations in line aren't the Hackers and IT managers.

Here some hackers are cutting off PayPAL and the swiss Banks that have hassled WIKILEAKS,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539

BBC
7 December 2010 Last updated at 07:40 ET

Wikileaks defended by Anonymous hacktivists

Internet hacktivists have fired the latest salvo in the Wikileaks infowar.

A group called Anonymous has hit sites that have refused to do business with the controversial whistle-blowing site with a series of distributed denial-of-service attacks.

It mirrors similar attacks aimed at the Wikileaks site.

Targets include the Swiss bank that froze founder Julian Assange's assets and PayPal which has stopped processing donations to Wikileaks.

Anonymous is a loose-knit group of hacktivists, with links to the notorious message board 4chan.
Increased traffic

A member of Anonymous who calls himself Coldblood told the BBC that "multiple things are being done".

"Websites that are bowing down to government pressure have become targets," he said.

"As an organization we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means."

"We feel that Wikileaks has become more than just about leaking of documents, it has become a war ground, the people vs. the government," he said.

So far the denial-of-service attacks (DDoS), which swamp a site with so many requests that it becomes overwhelmed, have failed to take any sites offline although that is not the point of the attack, according to Coldblood.

"The idea is not to wipe them off but to give the companies a wake-up call," he said. "Companies will notice the increase in traffic and an increase in traffic means increase in costs associated with running a website."

DDoS attacks are illegal in many countries, including the UK.

Coldblood admitted that such attacks "may hurt people trying to get to these sites" but said it was "the only effective way to tell these companies that us, the people, are displeased".

Anonymous is also helping to create hundreds of mirror sites for Wikileaks, after its US domain name provider withdrew its services.....

Will hackers FREE the world or will thugs and assassins feed buy big gov't and big corps hunt them down to keep control of the money and the people.
sounds like a movie trailer.

Cooool

Noir

12-07-2010, 12:49 PM

if at some point a leak becomes the proximate cause of someone's death.....and it happens in a jurisdiction which has the death penalty.....then it would logically follow that his execution would be legal.....

Well good luck on proving 'proximate cause' beyond reasonable doubt.

In any case, those in the OP don't seem to want a trail, they just want him dead, or think he should be dead already.

is it really a MASSIVE difference??? Just because he didn't "sell" the information to enemies of the state, he sure as hell made it ALL available to them.... Which is worse doing something for monetary gain or doing it out of malice....

There is a huge difference, because if you consider him a spy you also consider myself and countless millions of other people as spys. Do you?

What purpose does he have for putting this information out there??? I would also add the blackmail/extortion charge to him for his "if i'm arrested I will release all this OTHER information"....

I'd say there is great public interest to be had, for example the fact that Seria has been buying medium range missiles from North Korea and Iraq was is similar discussions to acquire such weapons not long before we invaded is important to know, no?

As for the blackmail rubbish. Be under not illusions, Assange is not wikileaks, it is much bigger than him, should he be shot dead tomorrow the steady stream of leaks will continue to be published. Infact Assange has been denied bale (for political reasons) so he likey won't be free until the 14th December. Wikileaks issued a statement immediately saying tinights leaks would continue as normal.

NightTrain

12-07-2010, 02:32 PM

There is a huge difference, because if you consider him a spy you also consider myself and countless millions of other people as spys. Do you?

You're saying you've received secret American communications and have broadcast them to the world?

I'd say there is great public interest to be had, for example the fact that Seria has been buying medium range missiles from North Korea and Iraq was is similar discussions to acquire such weapons not long before we invaded is important to know, no?

Since when does the general public have the right to know the particulars of matters of national security? Did Churchill seek public comment when intel was coming in about Hitler's atomic program? Did Truman take an international poll to see what the general consensus was before nuking Nagasaki & Hiroshima?

How about Kennedy? Did he seek public input when facing down the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the world teetered on the edge of nuclear war?

This notion some of you have thinking that you have a right to any & all secret government information is silly. Not just American information, you don't have a right to secret British information, either.

If you really think you should be in the loop as to secret information, then you should begin the process of joining your respective country's Intelligence Services. Or join the military. Once you do that, you'll understand why there is information that is withheld from general public knowledge.

SassyLady

12-07-2010, 02:35 PM

i
What purpose does he have for putting this information out there???

Maybe he didn't sell it to the soviets but each time someone clicks on his website isn't that, in effect, selling it?

He's even more dangerous than a spy selling secrets ... he's indiscriminate and doesn't care ... he has no consciousness ... he's a narcissist.

Pagan

12-07-2010, 02:48 PM

Government continually violates the law with Bullshit like Naked Body Scanners, Warrantless Wiretaps, Rendition, etc. So with Government having no respect for the rule of law nor anyone's privacy there is no reason to respect their privacy.

Until Government follows the rule of law "Fuckem", they reap what they sow

revelarts

12-07-2010, 03:15 PM

Maybe he didn't sell it to the soviets but each time someone clicks on his website isn't that, in effect, selling it?

He's even more dangerous than a spy selling secrets ... he's indiscriminate and doesn't care ... he has no consciousness ... he's a narcissist.

Am I in the right thread
Are you talking about Obama?

No OK
Newspapers "sell" secrets as well.
WikiLeaks It's not espionage in that sense.

WikiLeaks Also Leaked info about the Iranian Nuke program.
Is it OK to do that?

Noir

12-07-2010, 03:17 PM

You're saying you've received secret American communications and have broadcast them to the world?

Well your government still considers the documents classified, no? Some bloke passed the files on to Julian and the unknown number of others that work at wikileaks, he past them on to others like myself and we are now passing them between ourselves and others. Where do you draw the line of who is the spy worthy of the death penalty?

Since when does the general public have the right to know the particulars of matters of national security? Did Churchill seek public comment when intel was coming in about Hitler's atomic program? Did Truman take an international poll to see what the general consensus was before nuking Nagasaki & Hiroshima?

How about Kennedy? Did he seek public input when facing down the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the world teetered on the edge of nuclear war?

This notion some of you have thinking that you have a right to any & all secret government information is silly. Not just American information, you don't have a right to secret British information, either.

If you really think you should be in the loop as to secret information, then you should begin the process of joining your respective country's Intelligence Services. Or join the military. Once you do that, you'll understand why there is information that is withheld from general public knowledge.

I think everything that has been released so far is worthy of release with te exception of the file about places we think are critical for tye war on terror, if you don't fair enough.

SassyLady

12-07-2010, 03:23 PM

From Noir
I think everything that has been released so far is worthy of release with te exception of the file about places we think are critical for tye war on terror, if you don't fair enough

Am I in the right thread
Are you talking about Obama?

No OK
Newspapers "sell" secrets as well.
WikiLeaks It's not espionage in that sense.

WikiLeaks Also Leaked info about the Iranian Nuke program.
Is it OK to do that?

How does leaking the info about the Iranian Nuke program make the world safer? How are you changing your life style with this information? Are you rushing down to the local recruiter and signing up to go fight the big bad Iranians?

If that information was available to be leaked, do you not think people who needed to know already knew?

Again, I ask you .... other than having the public running around like little chickens with their heads cut off and screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling .... how has leaking this information benefited anyone other than the Wikileaks organization?

You'll say....well, the public has the right to know ... OK, so NOW we know ... what's next????

Gaffer

12-07-2010, 03:35 PM

Leaking stuff that embarrasses people I have no problem with. Most of the government stuff and foreign government stuff is already known among the participants. Making it public knowledge just gives them a red face. I have a problem with leaks that endanger people. That's when the leaks go to far. Things involving the military are secret for a reason, as is the intelligence service.

Listing sites the government considers critical to national security is not serving the public interest. It's providing target information to our enemies. That falls under treason or espionage.

NK selling rockets to syria and iran is not new info. The government has all that information. what they don't want anyone to know is how they got that information, so they keep it under wraps. Exposing what they know might endanger their source.

Allange is not alone and he's got some serious financing which I would lay odds traces back to soros. Allange is just the front man.

Kathianne

12-07-2010, 03:55 PM

And that difference is a massive one. He is no more a spy than I am. Or indeed more than anyone who has read and passed on a leaked document.

Not true:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html

* DECEMBER 7, 2010

Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act By DIANNE FEINSTEIN

When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document trove—more than 250,000 secret State Department cables—he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.

The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

No doubt aware of this law, and despite firm warnings, Mr. Assange went ahead and released the cables on Nov. 28.

In a letter sent to Mr. Assange and his lawyer on Nov. 27, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh warned in strong terms that the documents had been obtained "in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action."

...

Am I in the right thread
Are you talking about Obama?

No OK
Newspapers "sell" secrets as well.
WikiLeaks It's not espionage in that sense.

WikiLeaks Also Leaked info about the Iranian Nuke program.
Is it OK to do that?

It may be that the newspapers may also be held to these standards, not clear yet on that.

The Iran secrets were fallout of our secrets-third party harm.

Well your government still considers the documents classified, no? Some bloke passed the files on to Julian and the unknown number of others that work at wikileaks, he past them on to others like myself and we are now passing them between ourselves and others. Where do you draw the line of who is the spy worthy of the death penalty?

I think everything that has been released so far is worthy of release with te exception of the file about places we think are critical for tye war on terror, if you don't fair enough.

It appears 'that bloke' was a pvc soldier, treason charges likely against him. What Wikileaks did is espionage.

revelarts

12-07-2010, 05:17 PM

How does leaking the info about the Iranian Nuke program make the world safer?
People seem pretty concerned about it, some folks are trying to openly prove Iranian wrong doing. Seems an open non governmental source would nice to have.

How are you changing your life style with this information?
Me?

Are you rushing down to the local recruiter and signing up to go fight the big bad Iranians?
I didn't say it was a Nuclear WEAPONS program , as others do. I don't think Iran is a threat.
In spite of what some folk keep shouting.

If that information was available to be leaked, do you not think people who needed to know already knew?
I don't know? I don't think any of us do? But a gov't who ask people in walwart to "see and say" is obviously is looking for every info source it can get. Seems wiki leaks can work both ways.

Again, I ask you .... other than having the public running around like little chickens with their heads cut off and screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling .... how has leaking this information benefited anyone other than the Wikileaks organization?
I'm not sure which info your talking about here, they've leaked a lot of stuff. Some of it should get some people fired, some of the info should put people in jail. In a best case scenario it should make people in all gov'ts better behaved.

You'll say....well, the public has the right to know ... OK, so NOW we know ... what's next????
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with
their own government." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

Leaking stuff that embarrasses people I have no problem with.
Agreed

Most of the government stuff and foreign government stuff is already known among the participants.
Agreed

Making it public knowledge just gives them a red face. I have a problem with leaks that endanger people. That's when the leaks go to far.
Qualified Agreement

Things involving the military are secret for a reason, as is the intelligence service.
Many times but Sometime some of those reason are not in the interest of the people.

Listing sites the government considers critical to national security is not serving the public interest. It's providing target information to our enemies. That falls under treason or espionage.
Agreed

NK selling rockets to syria and iran is not new info. The government has all that information. what they don't want anyone to know is how they got that information, so they keep it under wraps. Exposing what they know might endanger their source.
True, How did you feel about Valire Plame

Allange is not alone and he's got some serious financing which I would lay odds traces back to soros. Allange is just the front man.
Soro is one, there are others. Frankly wikileaks is fishy but the info seems legit so far.

It may be that the newspapers may also be held to these standards, not clear yet on that.
GOD help us All. there goes the 1st amendment. Alien and sedition acts back on the books.

The Iran secrets were fallout of our secrets-third party harm.
the latest Iranian Info was, but back in 2009 it was info from an Iranian informant it seems.

NightT,
Sure there's plenty of stuff that needs to be secret but Pagan said it.
Our gov't has lied and groped and surveillaed, renditioned, sneaked and peaked, tracked our credit, email, phones, shot our dogs and more. more sunlight on there activities is LOONG overdue. ANd sense they won't do it willingly some folks may do it with a bit of a mess.

NightTrain

12-07-2010, 05:36 PM

Well your government still considers the documents classified, no? Some bloke passed the files on to Julian and the unknown number of others that work at wikileaks, he past them on to others like myself and we are now passing them between ourselves and others. Where do you draw the line of who is the spy worthy of the death penalty?

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse, Noir. I will assume you're being honest here, and since you strike me as a reasonably intelligent fellow it baffles me as to why I have to explain the logic.

The Private stole the information. He's guilty of espionage.

The Private sent Assange the stolen info. Add a few more felonies.

Assange received the information. He's now got 2 choices : Commit serious felonies by releasing it to the media or inform the Americans that he has it and how he got it.

Assange is warned of the serious consequences of his intentions to release.

Assange decides to broadcast the information worldwide, even going so far as to sending advance copies to different media organizations to ensure full disclosure, endangering many lives in the process, and goes into hiding.

Noir reads about this on the internet, along with several billion other humans.

Noir is not guilty of espionage because he was not involved with the stealing or dissemination of the classified information. He saw it along with the rest of the world in the public domain where it was placed courtesy of Assange.

I hope this clears it all up.

Palin Rider

12-07-2010, 06:03 PM

When you're directing it towards Mr. Assange

It would be a crime for any private individual or group to solicit Mr. Assange's death. Any government, of course, can offer a reward for his capture.

This statement is borderline:
“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

but it's technically not solicitation, because the CIA doesn't accept requests from the public. :)

MtnBiker

12-07-2010, 08:21 PM

When is it okay to publicy call for someones death?

Maybe we should ask Salman Rushdie?

Noir

12-08-2010, 07:27 AM

Maybe we should ask Salman Rushdie?

Exactly, and it was an outrage that so many people found such calls for murder not only acceptable, but moral, such were the ties of religion that bound people together in a hatered of Rushdie.

But these calls for Jullians death are not coming from some middle eastern theocrat, but from American reporters, comontators and politicians. Simply amazing.

I wonder how long I could go about printing newspaper articles about wanting Obama to be murdered before I'd be locked up for incitement.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse, Noir. I will assume you're being honest here, and since you strike me as a reasonably intelligent fellow it baffles me as to why I have to explain the logic.

The Private stole the information. He's guilty of espionage.

The Private sent Assange the stolen info. Add a few more felonies.

Assange received the information. He's now got 2 choices : Commit serious felonies by releasing it to the media or inform the Americans that he has it and how he got it.

Assange is warned of the serious consequences of his intentions to release.

Assange decides to broadcast the information worldwide, even going so far as to sending advance copies to different media organizations to ensure full disclosure, endangering many lives in the process, and goes into hiding.

Noir reads about this on the internet, along with several billion other humans.

Noir is not guilty of espionage because he was not involved with the stealing or dissemination of the classified information. He saw it along with the rest of the world in the public domain where it was placed courtesy of Assange.

I hope this clears it all up.

Obviously the private who stole it is guilty of something or other.

Assange and the team at wikileaks were sent the cables (presumably you believe that everyone in the team should be treated as criminals)

They forwarded the cables to New Companies, for example The Guardian here in Britian and dozens others worldwide who agreed to publish them, surly the editors of those papers were in a similar position as the wikileak team, given a load of confidential files, could chose to publish or not. They all decided to publish, but they are all innocent?

Wikileaks servers have been attacked, shut down, and DNSs denied. To ensure that the information on wikileaks is never lost over 500 "mirror" websites have been established by private individuals. So even if the wikileaks site was wiped from the net everything would still be available to the public and new leaks could be added. Does that mean everyone hosting a mirror site is also a criminal?

The State is big, but the people are allot bigger, I am a part of several large internet projects; SkyNet, Chanology, Baylout, GreenWave etc and the Goverment has seen nothing of the blowback that will come it's way If it starts to bring down Mirrors, which is why it probably won't. Which leads to the most important point. If there are 500 (and growing mirrors) all showing exactly the same content at the same time, how can you only judge one of them to be illegal and the rest as fine?

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 07:56 AM

Obviously the private who stole it is guilty of something or other.

Assange and the team at wikileaks were sent the cables (presumably you believe that everyone in the team should be treated as criminals)

They forwarded the cables to New Companies, for example The Guardian here in Britian and dozens others worldwide who agreed to publish them, surly the editors of those papers were in a similar position as the wikileak team, given a load of confidential files, could chose to publish or not. They all decided to publish, but they are all innocent?

Wikileaks servers have been attacked, shut down, and DNSs denied. To ensure that the information on wikileaks is never lost over 500 "mirror" websites have been established by private individuals. So even if the wikileaks site was wiped from the net everything would still be available to the public and new leaks could be added. Does that mean everyone hosting a mirror site is also a criminal?

The State is big, but the people are allot bigger, I am a part of several large internet projects; SkyNet, Chanology, Baylout, GreenWave etc and the Goverment has seen nothing of the blowback that will come it's way If it starts to bring down Mirrors, which is why it probably won't. Which leads to the most important point. If there are 500 (and growing mirrors) all showing exactly the same content at the same time, how can you only judge one of them to be illegal and the rest as fine?

At the point that Assange forwarded and broadcast the information worldwide, it was then public domain, like it or not. There was no way to stuff the cat back in the bag since the distribution was planned to have competing news outfits all receive the information around the world simultaneously. Assange is guilty, as is any of his cohorts that participated in their little misadventure. Whether or not his comrades are charged is matter for the prosecutors to figure out.

Any one down the line after Assange put it in public domain is certainly not guilty of anything.

Noir

12-08-2010, 08:21 AM

At the point that Assange forwarded and broadcast the information worldwide, it was then public domain, like it or not. There was no way to stuff the cat back in the bag since the distribution was planned to have competing news outfits all receive the information around the world simultaneously. Assange is guilty, as is any of his cohorts that participated in their little misadventure. Whether or not his comrades are charged is matter for the prosecutors to figure out.

Any one down the line after Assange put it in public domain is certainly not guilty of anything.

I'd be of the opinion that the guy who first leaked the information put it in the public domain.

PostmodernProphet

12-08-2010, 08:29 AM

Well good luck on proving 'proximate cause' beyond reasonable doubt.

leaked document says Abdul is giving information to the coalition troops about activities of the Taliban......Taliban kills Abdul......close enough.....

revelarts

12-08-2010, 08:41 AM

Noir

12-08-2010, 08:59 AM

leaked document says Abdul is giving information to the coalition troops about activities of the Taliban......Taliban kills Abdul......close enough.....

Can you point to an 'Abdul' like figure in any of the wikileaks released?

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 09:04 AM

Noir

12-08-2010, 09:05 AM

Assange decides to broadcast the information worldwide, even going so far as to sending advance copies to different media organizations to ensure full disclosure, endangering many lives in the process, and goes into hiding.

Wow, I missed that first time round, did you just make that up?
He was certainly not in hiding, while in London he worked in an open office with other journalists. He informed the police of both where he lived and worked, he informed them of who his solicitor was and Te morning after Sweden issued their european warrent he walked into a police station voluntarily.
What part of that suggests 'hiding' to you?

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 09:06 AM

[quote]Assange decides to broadcast the information worldwide, even going so far as to sending advance copies to different media organizations to ensure full disclosure, endangering many lives in the process, and goes into hiding.[/quite]

Wow, I missed that first time round, did you just make that up?
He was certainly not in hiding, while in London he worked in an open office with other journalists. He informed the police of both where he lived and worked, he informed them of who his solicitor was and Te morning after Sweden issued their european warrent he walked into a police station voluntarily.
What part of that suggests 'hiding' to you?

He WAS in hiding at first, and he admitted as much... then he and his lawyers made himself available. It was not made up, it was worldwide news for a couple of days that no one knew of his whereabouts

Noir

12-08-2010, 09:11 AM

This is nothing more than an anti-government anti-war group disguised as "freedom of speech" - which is 100% bullshit and they deserve everything and anything that comes their way.

Really? What about the leaks of the discussions held between North Korea, Serria and Iraq with strengthen the case for having gone to war against Saddams regime? Surly wikileaks should not of released that cable if they had such an agenda, right?

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 09:14 AM

Noir

12-08-2010, 09:16 AM

He WAS in hiding at first, and he admitted as much... then he and his lawyers made himself available. It was not made up, it was worldwide news for a couple of days that no one knew of his whereabouts

Lol, okay, you tell that to the Police chief who was on the news lastnight who said they knew where he was and as soon as the warrant for arrest was ordered they contacted his lawyer who said he'd walk into a police station the next day, as he duly did.

Maybe the police did not want to disclose where he was to the media, but that's hardly hiding, and again the fact that he was working in an open office in the City of London with other jurnolists who obviously all knew who he was isn't the best hiding tatic ive ever heard of.

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 09:21 AM

I'd be of the opinion that the guy who first leaked the information put it in the public domain.

No, both the Private and Assange conspired to disseminate Classified American Information.

Noir

12-08-2010, 09:26 AM

No, both the Private and Assange conspired to disseminate Classified American Information.

Well firstly it was not just Assange, but all of the wikileaks team.
And presumably if the private had chosen not yo send the info to wikileaks but rather a number of newspapers, you'd be blaming the private and the newspapers?

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 09:32 AM

Really? What about the leaks of the discussions held between North Korea, Serria and Iraq with strengthen the case for having gone to war against Saddams regime? Surly wikileaks should not of released that cable if they had such an agenda, right?

Do NK, Syria and Iraq not have governments? Was the information that was leaked about them, information about citizens or government?

Lol, okay, you tell that to the Police chief who was on the news lastnight who said they knew where he was and as soon as the warrant for arrest was ordered they contacted his lawyer who said he'd walk into a police station the next day, as he duly did.

Maybe the police did not want to disclose where he was to the media, but that's hardly hiding, and again the fact that he was working in an open office in the City of London with other jurnolists who obviously all knew who he was isn't the best hiding tatic ive ever heard of.

Dude, you're talking about after the warrant and crap came out which have nothing to do with the leaks. I'm talking about BEFORE that, and he WAS in hiding at that time, due to the leaks. He even released a statement stating he feared for his life as a result of the leaks. No on knew where he was at that time. It wasn't until the warrant came forward and his lawyers contacted London police. Hell, he probably figured he was safer in jail.

Well firstly it was not just Assange, but all of the wikileaks team.
And presumably if the private had chosen not yo send the info to wikileaks but rather a number of newspapers, you'd be blaming the private and the newspapers?

The case against the military private is open/shut.

Whomever on the other end conspired to receive state secrets should be charged, and I would argue that it would be the entire team. If they knew they were conspiring to come int possession of stolen state secrets, then they should be held liable. The newspapers and citizens who read the cables after the fact did not conspire to receive stolen documents, by that time it's in the public domain.

You can argue the semantics all you like, but the entire world knows that it was the military private and wikileaks who is responsible - not those who choose to discuss their handywork once the damage has been done.

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 09:39 AM

Lol, okay, you tell that to the Police chief who was on the news lastnight who said they knew where he was and as soon as the warrant for arrest was ordered they contacted his lawyer who said he'd walk into a police station the next day, as he duly did.

Maybe the police did not want to disclose where he was to the media, but that's hardly hiding, and again the fact that he was working in an open office in the City of London with other jurnolists who obviously all knew who he was isn't the best hiding tatic ive ever heard of.

Why is it that news reports were saying his whereabouts were unknown?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/01/2010-12-01_julian_assange_wikileaks_founder_up_for_times_p erson_of_the_year_with_obama_pali.html

Assange's whereabouts are unknown since WikiLeaks' latest release of more than 250,000 top-secret U.S. documents on Sunday. Interpol has put him on their wanted list in a separate issue involving Assange, who allegedly sexually assaulted at least one woman in Sweden. He has vehemently denied the charge.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/12/wikileaks-assange-arrested-in-london-iran-nuclear-talks-conclude-in-geneva.html

Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian and founder of the WikiLeaks web site, was arrested by Scotland Yard on Tuesday when he turned himself in at a London police station. His attorneys have said they plan to aggressively fight extradition to Sweden, where he is accused of raping two women in August.

Assange's whereabouts have been unknown for the past month, during which 250,000 secret State Department cables were leaked by his web site. His attorney, Mark Stephens, said he turned himself in because he "has been the one in hot pursuit to vindicate himself to clear his good name."

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 09:41 AM

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 09:41 AM

Well firstly it was not just Assange, but all of the wikileaks team.
And presumably if the private had chosen not yo send the info to wikileaks but rather a number of newspapers, you'd be blaming the private and the newspapers?

No, just the Private. The newspapers were just insurance in case the wikileaks websites were kept under DDoS attacks, of course.

Noir

12-08-2010, 09:41 AM

Do NK, Syria and Iraq not have governments? Was the information that was leaked about them, information about citizens or government?

They were about the Iraqi government acquiring missiles from NK.

Unless you're now trying to say Wikileaks are so anti-government that they want to smear the name of a government that hasn't existed for many years...

Dude, you're talking about after the warrant and crap came out which have nothing to do with the leaks. I'm talking about BEFORE that, and he WAS in hiding at that time, due to the leaks. He even released a statement stating he feared for his life as a result of the leaks. No on knew where he was at that time. It wasn't until the warrant came forward and his lawyers contacted London police. Hell, he probably figured he was safer in jail.

No I'm not, the police became aware of where Assange would be staying in September, long before these new leaks came out. And is it any wonder he'd fear for his life when some Western Political Comentators are callig fir his unlawful murder and there seems to be little to no disapproval even on sites like this.

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 09:45 AM

And is it any wonder he'd fear for his life when some Western Political Comentators are callig fir his unlawful murder and there seems to be little to no disapproval even on sites like this.

I'm curious, what is your basis for "unlawful murder"? Is there a law protecting persons engaging in espionage?

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 09:46 AM

They were about the Iraqi government acquiring missiles from NK.

Unless you're now trying to say Wikileaks are so anti-government that they want to smear the name of a government that hasn't existed for many years...

Again, you're trying to play semantics. The cables they released are ALL about nothing more than releasing state secrets of various governments. Just so happens a bunch of them involve defunct government situations.

No I'm not, the police became aware of where Assange would be staying in September, long before these new leaks came out. And is it any wonder he'd fear for his life when some Western Political Comentators are callig fir his unlawful murder and there seems to be little to no disapproval even on sites like this.

You'll find no disapproval from me. He is releasing secret military information. Give him a proper military trial and execute him if found guilty.

Noir

12-08-2010, 09:48 AM

No, just the Private. The newspapers were just insurance in case the wikileaks websites were kept under DDoS attacks, of course.

Lol, okay, so it's seemingly impossible for a newspaper to be held accountable in the same way you want wikileaks to. If only Jullian had known, then instead of publishing everything online, he could of just done it in print, as a newspaper, and then only the private would be responsible...

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 09:49 AM

I'm curious, what is your basis for "unlawful murder"? Is there a law protecting persons engaging in espionage?

I'm wondering what his basis would be for a "lawful" murder. :lol:

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 09:51 AM

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 09:55 AM

Lol, okay, so it's seemingly impossible for a newspaper to be held accountable in the same way you want wikileaks to. If only Jullian had known, then instead of publishing everything online, he could of just done it in print, as a newspaper, and then only the private would be responsible...

If you read a bit of history, there has been instances innumerable that U.S. newspapers received sensitive information and were responsible not to print the story.

In the cases where the U.S. newspaper insisted on going ahead, they received warning of the consequences and then thought it over.

Obviously, a French news outfit isn't going to give a rat's ass about the damage to American interests, neither would a British rag. So that option wasn't on the table.

I'm wondering what his basis would be for a "lawful" murder. :lol:

Same! I understand those lawful murders can be tricky.

Noir

12-08-2010, 10:03 AM

Again, you're trying to play semantics. The cables they released are ALL about nothing more than releasing state secrets of various governments. Just so happens a bunch of them involve defunct government situations.

But you also said they are anti-war, when documents they released strengtged the case for war. Surely if they had an anti-war agenda they would not be releasing cables that support war.

You'll find no disapproval from me. He is releasing secret military information. Give him a proper military trial and execute him if found guilty.

As are countless newspaper editors, you want them all tried too?

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 10:11 AM

As are countless newspaper editors, you want them all tried too?

What part about Public Domain aren't you getting? All those news outfits received information that was now in the public domain. Roger?

We're going to send over a couple of those silent black helicopters to keep an eye on you, Noir. You're acting suspicious.

revelarts

12-08-2010, 10:12 AM

Rev - Julian states in that video that their goal by leaking things out is "justice".

They leaked out targets that the US deemed as what would do the most damage.. What "justice" do you, or anyone, think they were after in releasing this? Just as there are many "cables" that can be talked about all day that some say should be "transparent" - I can talk all day along about cables that have nothing at all to do with "justice" and are simply leaking security secrets.

If they were to just leak embarrassing documents, or documents that include a crime - then he would have a valid point. But TOO MANY of the cables they are releasing are nothing more than state secrets and no "justice" will have come for releasing them.

And then there are also a TON of fucking idiots on the 'net that are coming to their aid, talking about transparency, censorship and other crap... they think it's cool to protect a man/group who deliberately and methodically released state secrets that put lives in danger and tons of those secrets have jack shit to do with "justice".

This is nothing more than an anti-government anti-war group disguised as "freedom of speech" - which is 100% bullshit and they deserve everything and anything that comes their way.

"This is nothing more than an anti-government anti-war group disguised as "freedom of speech" - which is 100% bullshit and they deserve everything and anything that comes their way."

If they were a pro-war pro-government group disguised as freedom of speech would they be better?

I can't say your completely wrong, that what they are doing is SLOPPY, AND I'm still not sure of there motives or funding etc..
But I still think they do a service.
We all complain about the MSM. well here's a source that get issues beyond personalities to facts and docs.

Transparency is important to our republic.
Freedom of Speech is important to our republic.
And the world in general.
Gov't Secrecy is a danger.

I'm not saying they may not cross the line in some places. but they DON'T DESERVE TO BE KILLED or even jailed, at this point, for what they've done.

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 10:16 AM

But you also said they are anti-war, when documents they released strengtged the case for war. Surely if they had an anti-war agenda they would not be releasing cables that support war.

You don't think exposing state secrets about other countries deals that possibly "lead to war" would be part of the agenda of those anti-war? Why do you immediately feel that anti-war means anti-usa?

As are countless newspaper editors, you want them all tried too?

Yes, point out those that conspired to receive state secrets, and those that released any information not exposed on websites already such as wikileaks.or or wikileaks.ch

I'll give you a hint - none of them did.

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 10:17 AM

I'm not saying they may not cross the line in some places. but they DON'T DESERVE TO BE KILLED or even jailed, at this point, for what they've done.

Maybe we should have a big parade for Assange and give him the key to the city while holding hands & singing Kumbaya.

That'll be a GREAT deterrent for future hackers engaging in espionage.

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 10:20 AM

"This is nothing more than an anti-government anti-war group disguised as "freedom of speech" - which is 100% bullshit and they deserve everything and anything that comes their way."

If they were a pro-war pro-government group disguised as freedom of speech would they be better?

I can't say your completely wrong, that what they are doing is SLOPPY, AND I'm still not sure of there motives or funding etc..
But I still think they do a service.
We all complain about the MSM. well here's a source that get issues beyond personalities to facts and docs.

Transparency is important to our republic.
Freedom of Speech is important to our republic.
And the world in general.
Gov't Secrecy is a danger.

I'm not saying they may not cross the line in some places. but they DON'T DESERVE TO BE KILLED or even jailed, at this point, for what they've done.

Yeah, some service! Don't be surprised when other disagree with you that conspiring to steal state and military secrets and releasing them to the world, while placing countless lives in danger as a result - don't see it as any kind of "service".

If you think this is all a good thing, you likely think there isn't a reason for intelligence agencies and confidentiality, things that should not be released to the general public.

Noir

12-08-2010, 10:20 AM

Once it has already been fully released online and distributed to hundreds of leading newspapers around the world - it is now in the public domain.

No news agency that I am aware of conspired to receive state secrets that only they possessed, and then disseminated this information.

So at what point do you hit the critical mass nessessery for something to be in the public domain? At first just the private had it. Then he sent it onto wikileaks, so a couple of dozen people had them, then they sent them on to three international news papers (One in Britian, America and Germany) so a few dozen more had the information before it got past around to loads of other newspapers.

You seem to imply it's wring if only one org hand out the info, ie. If it was just the New York Times, or just the Guardian. But the fact that most news orgs have them makes it alright. Ilegality in numbers?

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 10:22 AM

Maybe we should have a big parade for Assange and give him the key to the city while holding hands & singing Kumbaya.

That'll be a GREAT deterrent for future hackers engaging in espionage.

Absolutely bewildering that ANYONE cannot see the massive crime going on here and look to absolve Assange and his cronies. Can you only imagine what the outrage would be if this same information was just one day read across the airwaves on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, or if ANY US Politician went rogue and released state secrets. They would be jailed instantly.

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 10:24 AM

So at what point do you hit the critical mass nessessery for something to be in the public domain? At first just the private had it. Then he sent it onto wikileaks, so a couple of dozen people had them, then they sent them on to three international news papers (One in Britian, America and Germany) so a few dozen more had the information before it got past around to loads of other newspapers.

You seem to imply it's wring if only one org hand out the info, ie. If it was just the New York Times, or just the Guardian. But the fact that most news orgs have them makes it alright. Ilegality in numbers?

Wikilieaks puts them on their site - anything else is just a copy to others. THEY FULLY put it into the public domain. I DO NOT see any newspapers releasing ANY cables that aren't already released by wikileaks. And THAT is where you draw the line.

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 10:25 AM

So at what point do you hit the critical mass nessessery for something to be in the public domain?

At the precise moment that the wikileaks servers went live with the info. At that very second.

Noir

12-08-2010, 10:31 AM

Wikilieaks puts them on their site - anything else is just a copy to others. THEY FULLY put it into the public domain. I DO NOT see any newspapers releasing ANY cables that aren't already released by wikileaks. And THAT is where you draw the line.

Okay, inwhich case wikileaks workers will be criminal in your opinion. But it'll be interesting to see what happens if the world Goverments are successful in stopping wikileaks. Which news orgs will be the first to start publishing by themselves? This is where some british Publications like the Guardian and Private Eye will hold an advantage, being not-for-profit orgs.

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 10:35 AM

Okay, inwhich case wikileaks workers will be criminal in your opinion. But it'll be interesting to see what happens if the world Goverments are successful in stopping wikileaks. Which news orgs will be the first to start publishing by themselves? This is where some british Publications like the Guardian and Private Eye will hold an advantage, being not-for-profit orgs.

They won't be successful in stopping them as wikileaks has already setup redundant servers with others not necessarily on their team, and have coded much of it with a password they can release if they need to. Even if it's not "all" released, the overwhelming majority of it has already been distributed by wikileaks.

revelarts

12-08-2010, 12:36 PM

Noir

12-08-2010, 01:11 PM

I'm wondering what his basis would be for a "lawful" murder. :lol:

A "lawful murder" is murder after due process. ie a person has been found guilty by their peers in court and then a death sentence is passed. Meaning the state can legally murder that person.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eL-fpqZhhzM&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eL-fpqZhhzM&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Game.
Set.
Match.

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 01:27 PM

A "lawful murder" is murder after due process. ie a person has been found guilty by their peers in court and then a death sentence is passed. Meaning the state can legally murder that person.

There's a term for that. Execution.

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 02:06 PM

Game.
Set.
Match.

Doubtful. Assange conspired to receive confidential state and military documents. No case could have been made against the Times as such. A media conglomerate publishing something it received and a person conspiring to steal state secrets are 2 totally different things.

Soo all of you guys backing Assange - you guys would agree then that ANY employee of the US Government should be able to steal any and all documents they find, and they should be able to publish it, and it should be legal - as it's protected under the first amendment.

Noir - You asked earlier where does the espionage "start" when going from the private, to assange, to his team, to the papers...

Now let's do that in reverse - if you cannot charge the media because of the 1st amendment. Then you can't charge assange because of the 1st amendment. Then you can't charge the private due to the first amendment. Then you can't charge anyone releasing information due to the first amendment. Where does it "end" when you play your game?

A "lawful murder" is murder after due process. ie a person has been found guilty by their peers in court and then a death sentence is passed. Meaning the state can legally murder that person.

Impossible. The very definition of murder is that it is killing someone unlawfully. So if it is legal, it cannot be murder. It's an execution as NT already stated.

Abbey Marie

12-08-2010, 02:12 PM

revelarts

12-08-2010, 02:14 PM

Noir

12-08-2010, 02:21 PM

There's a term for that. Execution.

Indeed, Lawful Murder and State Sponsered Execution are tautologies

Impossible. The very definition of murder is that it is killing someone unlawfully. So if it is legal, it cannot be murder. It's an execution as NT already stated.

Indeed, that's not how I personally define murder however, in the same way many people say that abortion is murder, when ofcourse it could not be when a government says it is legal to have an abortion, right? Sometimes the definition of a word and it's meaning run counter to eachother, that doesn't mean that either are wrong, but it does lead to problems when someone tries to make the definition and the meaning one and the same.

abso

12-08-2010, 02:30 PM

Impossible. The very definition of murder is that it is killing someone unlawfully. So if it is legal, it cannot be murder. It's an execution as NT already stated.

how is it legal ?

Noir

12-08-2010, 02:34 PM

Doubtful. Assange conspired to receive confidential state and military documents. No case could have been made against the Times as such. A media conglomerate publishing something it received and a person conspiring to steal state secrets are 2 totally different things.

In what way conspired? He requested the private steal the infomation?

all of you guys backing Assange - you guys would agree then that ANY employee of the US Government should be able to steal any and all documents they find, and they should be able to publish it, and it should be legal - as it's protected under the first amendment.

Speaking fir myself, no, it's wrong to steal, someone steals, they get punished. However, if they pass their stolen information on to a news org then the news org has the right to publish it, whether or not t was legally obtained.

Noir - You asked earlier where does the espionage "start" when going from the private, to assange, to his team, to the papers...

Now let's do that in reverse - if you cannot charge the media because of the 1st amendment. Then you can't charge assange because of the 1st amendment. Then you can't charge the private due to the first amendment. Then you can't charge anyone releasing information due to the first amendment. Where does it "end" when you play your game?

You charge the person who illegally stole the information. If after stealing it they passed it on then it's fine for them to do what they what with it (ie publish it) wherein the 1st amendment will protect tier right to publish. It is the thief that is in the wrong, no one else.

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 02:51 PM

how is it legal ?

Please keep up instead of asking dumb questions. Noir made a reference to "unlawful murder" and I made a quip about all murder being unlawful. He stated if it was akin to the death penalty that it was "lawful" murder. I disagreed with him as it can ONLY be murder if it's done unlawfully.

In what way conspired? He requested the private steal the infomation?

Speaking fir myself, no, it's wrong to steal, someone steals, they get punished. However, if they pass their stolen information on to a news org then the news org has the right to publish it, whether or not t was legally obtained.

You charge the person who illegally stole the information. If after stealing it they passed it on then it's fine for them to do what they what with it (ie publish it) wherein the 1st amendment will protect tier right to publish. It is the thief that is in the wrong, no one else.

So you know jack shit about espionage, receiving stolen property and the like do you? LOL

PostmodernProphet

12-08-2010, 03:18 PM

Can you point to an 'Abdul' like figure in any of the wikileaks released?

I have not read 150k documents.....it has been stated there are documents out there that will put lives at risk.....I have not said Assange has committed such an act.......you asked for a scenario, I gave you one.....

As are countless newspaper editors, you want them all tried too?

a while back newpapers released false information about things being done to the Koran at Guantanemo......riots resulted and people died......are the editors not responsible?.....is it "freedom of speech" to say something which is not true that causes death?.....

Noir

12-08-2010, 03:43 PM

a while back newpapers released false information about things being done to the Koran at Guantanemo......riots resulted and people died......are the editors not responsible?.....is it "freedom of speech" to say something which is not true that causes death?.....

Lawl, ofcourse they aren't responsible. Take this to it's logical conclusion and no one could ever do anything for risk of offendig someone, incase that someone was then was motivated by that to do evil deeds. and you think the person who caused the 'offense' was at fault? :laugh:

In a similar vein I have a small drawing of a stick man labeled Mohammed that's attached to my carry bag. It's there because I have the freedom to put it there, some Muslims may believe it blasphemy, some may want me dead for it, but what they chose to do is their choice, and if I were to not have the drawing attached for fear of being attacked then I am letting my right to free speech be infringed upon, and I simply won't. Does that make me the problem if some Muslim wacko attacks me?

Kathianne

12-08-2010, 04:11 PM

Lawl, ofcourse they aren't responsible. Take this to it's logical conclusion and no one could ever do anything for risk of offendig someone, incase that someone was then was motivated by that to do evil deeds. and you think the person who caused the 'offense' was at fault? :laugh:

In a similar vein I have a small drawing of a stick man labeled Mohammed that's attached to my carry bag. It's there because I have the freedom to put it there, some Muslims may believe it blasphemy, some may want me dead for it, but what they chose to do is their choice, and if I were to not have the drawing attached for fear of being attacked then I am letting my right to free speech be infringed upon, and I simply won't. Does that make me the problem if some Muslim wacko attacks me?

Well except of course when untrue and people die, but oh well?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newsweek_koran_toilet_story_wrong/

Newsweek: Koran Toilet Story Wrong
James Joyner · Sunday, May 15, 2005 · 24 Comments

Newsweek now confesses that its report that American soldiers in Guantanimo had flushed a Koran down a toilet as a means of gaining information from hostages–blamed by many for inciting violence that has killed at least nine people–was erroneous.

Mark Whitaker, The Editor’s Desk

Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur’an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them “not credible.” Our original source later said he couldn’t be certain about reading of the alleged Qur’an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst....

SassyLady

12-08-2010, 04:35 PM

Well except of course when untrue and people die, but oh well?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newsweek_koran_toilet_story_wrong/

I guess there isn't a law against irresponsible journalism ... all they do is post a "correction" notice somewhere inconspicuous.

Kathianne

12-08-2010, 04:42 PM

I guess there isn't a law against irresponsible journalism ... all they do is post a "correction" notice somewhere inconspicuous.

And they keep repeating the lies contained within:

http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/09/13/msnbc%E2%80%99s-wolffe-repeats-debunked-newsweek-claim-of-koran-flushed-down-toilet-by-guantanamo-interrogators/

Appearing as a guest on Friday’s Countdown show, MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe – formerly of Newsweek – referred to the debunked story that was retracted by Newsweek in May 2005 which had incorrectly claimed that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a Koran down a toilet to intimidate Muslim prisoners. But Wolffe did not inform viewers that the story was untrue as he accused conservatives of a double standard for criticizing Newsweek’s inaccurate Koran desecration story from 2005 while not being aggressive enough in condemning Pastor Terry Jones’s declaration that he would burn the Koran on September 11. Wolffe:

I'm struck all the time with this story about the experience of those of us who worked in Newsweek – not the least of whom is Mike Isikoff now at NBC News who wrote a story about the abuse of the Koran in Guantanamo Bay, and there were riots and people died and the overwhelming torrent of abuse from conservative, the echo chamber, more than elected officials I think, certainly from conservative media, was that Newsweek had lied and people died. That's what they said.

Newsweek’s erroneous story inspired riots and a significant number of deaths in 2005 before it was retracted by the magazine, although, as previously documented by the MRC, Newsweek buried its retraction....

abso

12-08-2010, 05:38 PM

Please keep up instead of asking dumb questions. Noir made a reference to "unlawful murder" and I made a quip about all murder being unlawful. He stated if it was akin to the death penalty that it was "lawful" murder. I disagreed with him as it can ONLY be murder if it's done unlawfully.

i am not discussing terminologies, i dont care if its called excution or lawful or unlawful murder, that is not the issue, that is a side discussion that i am not interested in joining.

what i am saying is that if you support killing him, then can you tell me, how is killing or excuting him legal ?

jimnyc

12-08-2010, 05:48 PM

i am not discussing terminologies, i dont care if its called excution or lawful or unlawful murder, that is not the issue, that is a side discussion that i am not interested in joining.

what i am saying is that if you support killing him, then can you tell me, how is killing or excuting him legal ?

I am saying that EXECUTING him after a military trial would be legal. Not much different if he were tried under a regular US court and sentenced to death by lethal injection, this would also be legal.

Pagan

12-08-2010, 05:54 PM

PostmodernProphet

12-08-2010, 11:34 PM

abso

12-08-2010, 11:35 PM

I am saying that EXECUTING him after a military trial would be legal. Not much different if he were tried under a regular US court and sentenced to death by lethal injection, this would also be legal.

and how can he be tried under the military or the civil american law ?, is he an american citizen ?

NightTrain

12-08-2010, 11:51 PM

and how can he be tried under the military or the civil american law ?, is he an american citizen ?

Assange is an Australian. Yes, the espionage law applies to non U.S. citizens and Americans alike.

abso

12-09-2010, 01:52 AM

Assange is an Australian. Yes, the espionage law applies to non U.S. citizens and Americans alike.

okay, but the penalty of death cant be applied on him, he cant be excuted.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 01:59 AM

Assange is an Australian. Yes, the espionage law applies to non U.S. citizens and Americans alike.

Source please

Kathianne

12-09-2010, 04:07 AM

Source please

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html?sid=ST2010112906806

Whether or not they can get him here, is another question. Certainly not without removing possibility of death sentence, if it applies.

abso

12-09-2010, 05:13 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html?sid=ST2010112906806

Whether or not they can get him here, is another question. Certainly not without removing possibility of death sentence, if it applies.

Yes, thats what i was saying, US will never get Assagne without removing the possibility of death sentence, thats why he is living in europe in the first place.

if he was living in Australia, they would hand him to US even if the death penalty is a possibility.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:43 AM

and how can he be tried under the military or the civil american law ?, is he an american citizen ?

okay, but the penalty of death cant be applied on him, he cant be excuted.

Yes, thats what i was saying, US will never get Assagne without removing the possibility of death sentence, thats why he is living in europe in the first place.

if he was living in Australia, they would hand him to US even if the death penalty is a possibility.

You are running in circles about things you have no clue about. First you state he can't be tried under our laws because he isn't an American citizen. Then you say the death penalty can't be applied to him. Then when you are corrected and shown to be clueless, you come back and state "Yes, that's what I was saying".

No you weren't. You were 100% wrong until corrected.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 08:09 AM

Source please

I will not solely direct this at you, just using your response. And to all who think the US can't prosecute Assange under espionage laws:

Do you think these laws only apply to Americans? If so, wouldn't it be easy to have ANY foreign person come here to do the dirty work and then proclaim "I'm not an American, you can't prosecute me!"

abso

12-09-2010, 08:13 AM

You are running in circles about things you have no clue about. First you state he can't be tried under our laws because he isn't an American citizen. Then you say the death penalty can't be applied to him. Then when you are corrected and shown to be clueless, you come back and state "Yes, that's what I was saying".

No you weren't. You were 100% wrong until corrected.

you collected differented replies which cannot be gathered unless you mention the replies of others which i built those replies upon.

debating is a process, you can build your opinion on info provided to you by others, but since you are just a child playing a game around here, then let me explain how those replies were said.

i read about the espionage act, and it mentioned nothing about any special rules for non-americans, so i wasnt sure that it included them thats why i asked:

and how can he be tried under the military or the civil american law ?, is he an american citizen ?

then NT told me that the act applies to non americans too:

Assange is an Australian. Yes, the espionage law applies to non U.S. citizens and Americans alike.

so i went and read about the extradition rules in EU which does not agree to handing over any person if he will face death penalty.

"Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime. Many countries and areas, such as Canada, Macao, Mexico, and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Restrictions

then i said:

(maybe i wasnt clear in that reply, as you may have thought that i meant that the american law doesnt apply on him, or the law says that he cant be excuted, while what i meant is that US will have to remove the possibility of death penalty to make EU agree to hand over Assange.)

okay, but the penalty of death cant be applied on him, he cant be excuted.

then Kathianne said:

Whether or not they can get him here, is another question. Certainly not without removing possibility of death sentence, if it applies.

thats why i said:

Yes, thats what i was saying, US will never get Assagne without removing the possibility of death sentence, thats why he is living in europe in the first place.

if he was living in Australia, they would hand him to US even if the death penalty is a possibility.

and the part i said about Australia because i read the extradition conditions in the treaty between Australia and USA in here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/10.html

so when exactly i was wrong, and when i was corrected by anyone ?

all i did, is asking a question, then the rest is valid statements, nothing is wrong in them, unless you consider my question about the espionage act as a statement.

and how was i running in circles or talking about something i dont know about ?

when exactly did i state that:

First you state he can't be tried under our laws because he isn't an American citizen.

when did i say that, i just asked about how he can be tried under that law, and NT told me that it applied to non americans, that was a question, not a statement, if you cant tell the difference between them, then just shut up.

Then you say the death penalty can't be applied to him. Then when you are corrected and shown to be clueless

i wasn't corrected, my statement still correct, because death penalty can't be applied to him, because EU wont hand him over unless if US remove that possibility, got it ?

you really wasted my time by making me explain myself although all my replies are clear enough, but you have the tendency to pervert everything i say and try to discredit it, its as if you are judging me all the time, anyway, good luck with your pathetic trials, my advice to you, is to find something better to do than to concentrate on every single word i say and try to make it look wrong.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 08:34 AM

you collected differented replies which cannot be gathered unless you mention the replies of others which i built those replies upon.

You were wrong from the get go whether you put question marks besides your replies or not. Then when it was all laid out for you, you come back with "That's what I was saying" - when clearly you weren't and had no clue.

debating is a process, you can build your opinion on info provided to you by others, but since you are just a child playing a game around here, then let me explain how those replies were said.

Yes, a process by which you denied what can happen to Assange until you were proven otherwise, then you claimed that's what you meant all along.

i read about the espionage act, and it mentioned nothing about any special rules for non-americans, so i wasnt sure that it included them thats why i asked:

Then you should ASK instead of making ignorant statements or conclusions.

then NT told me that the act applies to non americans too:

Did you think any person in the world can commit espionage against us without penalty, so long as they weren't Americans? LOL

so i went and read about the extradition rules in EU which does not agree to handing over any person if he will face death penalty.

Which has NOTHING to do with our laws...

"Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime. Many countries and areas, such as Canada, Macao, Mexico, and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Restrictions

then i said:

(maybe i wasnt clear in that reply, as you may have thought that i meant that the american law doesnt apply on him, or the law says that he cant be excuted, while what i meant is that US will have to remove the possibility of death penalty to make EU agree to hand over Assange.)

Maybe, maybe not. You'd be surprised what lengths other countries embarrassed in this instance may do.

then Kathianne said:

thats why i said:

and the part i said about Australia because i read the extradition conditions in the treaty between Australia and USA in here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/10.html

so when exactly i was wrong, and when i was corrected by anyone ?

all i did, is asking a question, then the rest is valid statements, nothing is wrong in them, unless you consider my question about the espionage act as a statement.

and how was i running in circles or talking about something i dont know about ?

Because you outright said he couldn't be executed or have the death penalty applied to him - which is 100% wrong - and when it was proven to you, you stated that is what you meant. If you meant that, you would have stated as much in your first post.

when exactly did i state that:

when did i say that, i just asked about how he can be tried under that law, and NT told me that it applied to non americans, that was a question, not a statement, if you cant tell the difference between them, then just shut up.

No, fuck off dirty little brown bomb boy. YOU wrote: "okay, but the penalty of death cant be applied on him, he cant be excuted."

You were wrong. And please don't tell me to shut up, unless of course you would like to pay the bills around here. I did not get personal with you. Little TNT boy is just mad because I made him look like the idiot he is.

i wasn't corrected, my statement still correct, because death penalty can't be applied to him, because EU wont hand him over unless if US remove that possibility, got it ?

No, your statement is still wrong!! EU laws have nothing to do with our laws. HE CAN be executed. Until such time that he "might" be extradited, and IF it's from a country that won't do so unless we take it off the table, the rest is just guessing on your part. But it's a FACT that the death penalty CAN be applied to him.

you really wasted my time by making me explain myself although all my replies are clear enough, but you have the tendency to pervert everything i say and try to discredit it, its as if you are judging me all the time, anyway, good luck with your pathetic trials, my advice to you, is to find something better to do than to concentrate on every single word i say and try to make it look wrong.

Fuck off little bomb making scum. Isn't it about time for you and your brethren time to wake up the women and beat them?

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 09:57 AM

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 10:48 AM

Here is an informative discussion on C-Span with the lawyer that successfully defended the New York Times over the Pentagon Papers.

He discusses the legal aspects of what Assange has done and what the prospects are of trying Assange. He's a First Amendment lawyer.

<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=296910-4'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=239166&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=296910-4' base='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=239166&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

Pagan

12-09-2010, 02:17 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html?sid=ST2010112906806

Whether or not they can get him here, is another question. Certainly not without removing possibility of death sentence, if it applies.

Per the link -

"Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government document"

Still waiting to see the source that states a country can enforce it's laws on a non citizen who isn't even in that country.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 02:23 PM

Per the link -

"Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government document"

Still waiting to see the source that states a country can enforce it's laws on a non citizen who isn't even in that country.

Are you serious? You doubt that we haven't imprisoned and even executed spies? Or drug lords from other countries?

Where the fuck have you been living? Under a rock in Mexico?

Do you really want links about prosecuting non-Americans under U.S. law?

abso

12-09-2010, 02:44 PM

You were wrong from the get go whether you put question marks besides your replies or not. Then when it was all laid out for you, you come back with "That's what I was saying" - when clearly you weren't and had no clue.

Yes, a process by which you denied what can happen to Assange until you were proven otherwise, then you claimed that's what you meant all along.

Then you should ASK instead of making ignorant statements or conclusions.

Did you think any person in the world can commit espionage against us without penalty, so long as they weren't Americans? LOL

Which has NOTHING to do with our laws...

Because you outright said he couldn't be executed or have the death penalty applied to him - which is 100% wrong - and when it was proven to you, you stated that is what you meant. If you meant that, you would have stated as much in your first post.

No, fuck off dirty little brown bomb boy. YOU wrote: "okay, but the penalty of death cant be applied on him, he cant be excuted."

You were wrong. And please don't tell me to shut up, unless of course you would like to pay the bills around here. I did not get personal with you. Little TNT boy is just mad because I made him look like the idiot he is.

No, your statement is still wrong!! EU laws have nothing to do with our laws. HE CAN be executed. Until such time that he "might" be extradited, and IF it's from a country that won't do so unless we take it off the table, the rest is just guessing on your part. But it's a FACT that the death penalty CAN be applied to him.

Fuck off little bomb making scum. Isn't it about time for you and your brethren time to wake up the women and beat them?

what i said is not the the US law cant excute him because it doesnt have a law that says so, espionage act does allow excuting him, but i said that EU wont hand him over unless excution is not an option, that why he cant be excuted, because US wont even get the change to trial him if the death penalty is an option, and i provided the sources i used in forming my opinion, i dont care if you still think that i didnt have a clue about whats being said or not, my opinion is clear.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 02:48 PM

what i said is not the the US law cant excute him because it doesnt have a law that says so, espionage act does allow excuting him, but i said that EU wont hand him over unless excution is not an option, that why he cant be excuted, because US wont even get the change to trial him if the death penalty is an option, and i provided the sources i used in forming my opinion, i dont care if you still think that i didnt have a clue about whats being said or not, my opinion is clear.

Your opinion is clear?

what i said is not the the US law cant excute him because it doesnt have a law that says so

espionage act does allow excuting him

but i said that EU wont hand him over unless excution is not an option

and i provided the sources i used in forming my opinion

I guess it's clear if you're in the 3rd grade.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 03:07 PM

Are you serious? You doubt that we haven't imprisoned and even executed spies? Or drug lords from other countries?

Where the fuck have you been living? Under a rock in Mexico?

Do you really want links about prosecuting non-Americans under U.S. law?

So you're saying country "a" can charge a citizen of country "b" for a crime who isn't even "in" country "a" and then country "a" can just go into country "b" to arrest them?

Source please

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 03:14 PM

abso

12-09-2010, 03:15 PM

Abso - I am going to give you a "reprieve" and forget your 24hr ban. But please re-read the rules as you've needed to be reminded several times now. You CANNOT copy/paste Private Messages OR Rep Comments on the board - as per the rules. Had you known this, you wouldn't have pasted my comments to you. Any further discussion about this - shoot me a PM or if you feel more comfortable, send it to dmp or Kathianne.

why do i feel that sometimes you are rude and disrespectful and sometimes you can actually be nice and respectful, can't you pick one side so that i can also stick with one opinion, to hate you or to like you !!! :rolleyes:

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 03:20 PM

why do i feel that sometimes you are rude and disrespectful and sometimes you can actually be nice and respectful, can't you pick one side so that i can also stick with one opinion, to hate you or to like you !!! :rolleyes:

I'm always rude and disrespectful when it comes to my posts. I try to be respectful and unbiased when I am "admin" and have to run the board. We have very few rules here, we simply ask that they be followed, then I can get back to being disrespectful.

abso

12-09-2010, 03:28 PM

I'm always rude and disrespectful when it comes to my posts. I try to be respectful and unbiased when I am "admin" and have to run the board. We have very few rules here, we simply ask that they be followed, then I can get back to being disrespectful.

you may need to review you msgs to me because i am pretty sure that you called me ****** and ******, so as admin you can also be rude and disrespectful :rolleyes:

didnt you ever think that you will get better results in debate if you are always respectful to others ? :poke:

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 03:28 PM

So you're saying country "a" can charge a citizen of country "b" for a crime who isn't even "in" country "a" and then country "a" can just go into country "b" to arrest them?

Source please

Sometimes this whole discussion makes me feel like I'm talking with a 10 year old with no knowledge or interest in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

Operation Nifty Package was an operation launched by Navy SEALs to prevent the escape of Noriega. They sank Noriega's boat and destroyed his jet at a cost of 4 killed and 9 wounded. Military operations continued for several weeks, mainly against military units of the Panamanian Army. Noriega remained at large for several days, but realizing he had few options in the face of a massive manhunt, with a one million dollar reward for his capture, he obtained refuge in the Vatican diplomatic mission in Panama City. The US military's psychological pressure on him and diplomatic pressure on the Vatican mission, however, was relentless, as was the playing of loud rock-and-roll music day and night in a densely populated area.[23] The report of the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff maintains that the music was used principally to prevent parabolic microphones from being used to eavesdrop on negotiations, and not as a psychological weapon based around Noriega's supposed loathing of rock music.[16] Noriega finally surrendered to the U.S. military on January 3, 1990. He was immediately put on an MC-130 Combat Talon aircraft and extradited to the United States.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 03:33 PM

you may need to review you msgs to me because i am pretty sure that you called me ****** and ******, so as admin you can also be rude and disrespectful :rolleyes:

didnt you ever think that you will get better results in debate if you are always respectful to others ? :poke:

Abso - you'd probably be better off dropping this issue and staying on the topic of this thread. I'll bite my tongue and leave it at that. If you want to discuss anything personal, shoot me a PM. I will reply to your other PM in just a moment.

abso

12-09-2010, 03:48 PM

Abso - you'd probably be better off dropping this issue and staying on the topic of this thread. I'll bite my tongue and leave it at that. If you want to discuss anything personal, shoot me a PM. I will reply to your other PM in just a moment.

no need, i will also leave it at that, and about the topic of this thread, i already said everything i wanted to say, i dont have any interest in discussing if Assagne should be excuted or not, or the legality of prosecuting him, all i wanted to say is that EU wont hand him over unless the death penality is not a possibility.

but there is always the option of a covert operation in whish Assagne can be abducted and transfered to USA, egypt did it before in argentina when an egyptian pilot spied for Israel and then escaped and lived in Argintena, he was abducted and brought back to egypt then excuted.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 03:53 PM

but there is always the option of a covert operation in whish Assagne can be abducted and transfered to USA

That, in my mind, is the most likely of scenarios.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 03:55 PM

Sometimes this whole discussion makes me feel like I'm talking with a 10 year old with no knowledge or interest in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

Well under these rules China would be perfectly justified to invade the U.S. in pursuit of seizing the Dali Lama when he visits here

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 03:59 PM

Well under these rules China would be perfectly justified to invade the U.S. in pursuit of seizing the Dali Lama when he visits here

I suppose they could.

If they had a snowball's chance in hell of doing so, which they don't.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 04:07 PM

I suppose they could.

If they had a snowball's chance in hell of doing so, which they don't.

This is the point that I'm getting at, bottom line is that it comes down to "precedent". If we go yanking people out of other country's for violating our laws other country's can do the same since we are setting "precedent". You know like N. Korea sending their black ops down to S. Korea to take back those who have escaped.

Unless Assange goes to a country that we have an extradition treaty with and that's even "iffy" since this is a "political" crime which most all country's do not honor.

Send in the CIA to the EU or Australia to nab him and see the ramifications of such action.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 04:11 PM

abso

12-09-2010, 04:12 PM

This is the point that I'm getting at, bottom line is that it comes down to "precedent". If we go yanking people out of other country's for violating our laws other country's can do the same since we are setting "precedent". You know like N. Korea sending their black ops down to S. Korea to take back those who have escaped.

Unless Assange goes to a country that we have an extradition treaty with and that's even "iffy" since this is a "political" crime which most all country's do not honor.

Send in the CIA to the EU or Australia to nab him and see the ramifications of such action.

actually, other countries will do whatever they like if USA does it first or not, if an egyptian acted against the egyptian national security and spied for USA, then he escaped to live there, the egyptian intelligence will get him back to egypt to be prosecuted at any costs, that how intelligence agencies work in any country in the world, treaties and borders doesnt have any significant importance in any operation at all, unless if it fails of course, thats when they all start to remember all the treaties they violated :laugh:

Pagan

12-09-2010, 04:13 PM

You define Assange's offenses as a "Political" crime? How so?

That's what is being "debated" -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973_2.html?sid=ST2010112906806

"All the experts agreed that it may be difficult for the United States to gain access to Assange, who apparently has avoided traveling to the country. Most nations' extradition treaties exempt crimes viewed as political. "I can imagine a lot of Western allies would view this not as a criminal act, but as a political act," said Weiss, who was on the legal team that defended the two former pro-Israel lobbyists."

abso

12-09-2010, 04:14 PM

That, in my mind, is the most likely of scenarios.

i agree

Pagan

12-09-2010, 04:16 PM

i agree

IMO it's too "political" and it won't happen, if it did the backlash from around the Globe would get seriously ugly.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 04:19 PM

That's what is being "debated" -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973_2.html?sid=ST2010112906806

"All the experts agreed that it may be difficult for the United States to gain access to Assange, who apparently has avoided traveling to the country. Most nations' extradition treaties exempt crimes viewed as political. "I can imagine a lot of Western allies would view this not as a criminal act, but as a political act," said Weiss, who was on the legal team that defended the two former pro-Israel lobbyists."

I fail to see how espionage and blatantly endangering innocent people's lives measures up to a "Political" crime.

Kathianne

12-09-2010, 04:27 PM

you may need to review you msgs to me because i am pretty sure that you called me ****** and ******, so as admin you can also be rude and disrespectful :rolleyes:

didnt you ever think that you will get better results in debate if you are always respectful to others ? :poke:

You don't have to like his posts or even read them. You certainly need not respond to them if you don't want to. He has every right to go 'off' on a tirade, it's what he does, as he's said many times.

Note that he 'unbanned'? That's what the moderators do when they get testy with a poster and are interacting with him/her. However, do read the rules or someone else will ban you if you do not follow them.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 04:32 PM

I fail to see how espionage and blatantly endangering innocent people's lives measures up to a "Political" crime.

Well China could also argue that in regards to the Dali Lama.

In any case that is what is being debated, if it's a "Political" crime or not.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 04:34 PM

Well China could also argue that in regards to the Dali Lama

Interesting.

Can you show me where the Dali Lama exposed Chinese state secrets and endangered their intelligence operatives & military forces by his actions?

Thanks in advance.

abso

12-09-2010, 04:41 PM

You don't have to like his posts or even read them. You certainly need not respond to them if you don't want to. He has every right to go 'off' on a tirade, it's what he does, as he's said many times.

Note that he 'unbanned'? That's what the moderators do when they get testy with a poster and are interacting with him/her. However, do read the rules or someone else will ban you if you do not follow them.

yes, and i already thanked him for the unbanning ;)

and i believe that i have straighten things up with him a little bit :rolleyes:, i apologised for a mistake i made that annoyed him yesterday.

abso

12-09-2010, 04:43 PM

IMO it's too "political" and it won't happen, if it did the backlash from around the Globe would get seriously ugly.

maybe not now, but if US couldnt get him with legal means, and he continues harming the US national security interests, then i expect the CIA not to stand silent, abducting him or a simple car crash would end it all.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 04:49 PM

maybe not now, but if US couldnt get him with legal means, and he continues harming the US national security interests, then i expect the CIA not to stand silent, abducting him or a simple car crash would end it all.

Unfortunately, there will be nothing to end... It's too late to stop the damage he has started. He has given the cables to WAY too many people already and even secured the "worst of the worst" with passcodes that only he and his team have. I don't see any realistic way of stopping the rest of the cables being released at this point. All that will be left is the fallout/damage and the making of a martyr by so many who think divulging state and military secrets is a good thing for ANY country.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 04:49 PM

Interesting.

Can you show me where the Dali Lama exposed Chinese state secrets and endangered their intelligence operatives & military forces by his actions?

Thanks in advance.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-18/politics/obama.dalailama_1_dalai-lama-tibetans-zhu-weiqun?_s=PM:POLITICS

Beijing regards the Nobel Peace Prize laureate as a dangerous "separatist" who wishes to sever Tibet from China.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6114BL20100202

China has become increasingly vocal in opposing meetings between foreign leaders and the Dalai Lama, who Beijing deems a dangerous separatist

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2fd135a0b62eb5462905790a833146e 0.501&show_article=1

"The meeting called on the party, government, military, police and public in all areas... to firmly crush the savage aggression of the Dalai clique, defeat separatism, and wage people's war to maintain stability," the paper said of the meeting in Lhasa.

China maintains that the Dalai Lama, who remains revered by Tibetans, is a dangerous separatist bent on independence for Tibet, a charge he denies.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 05:00 PM

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-18/politics/obama.dalailama_1_dalai-lama-tibetans-zhu-weiqun?_s=PM:POLITICS

Beijing regards the Nobel Peace Prize laureate as a dangerous "separatist" who wishes to sever Tibet from China.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6114BL20100202

China has become increasingly vocal in opposing meetings between foreign leaders and the Dalai Lama, who Beijing deems a dangerous separatist

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2fd135a0b62eb5462905790a833146e 0.501&show_article=1

"The meeting called on the party, government, military, police and public in all areas... to firmly crush the savage aggression of the Dalai clique, defeat separatism, and wage people's war to maintain stability," the paper said of the meeting in Lhasa.

China maintains that the Dalai Lama, who remains revered by Tibetans, is a dangerous separatist bent on independence for Tibet, a charge he denies.

Nifty links outlining China's stance condemning the Dalai Lama's differing political views. That's not what we were discussing.

Interesting.

Can you show me where the Dali Lama exposed Chinese state secrets and endangered their intelligence operatives & military forces by his actions?

Thanks in advance.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 05:15 PM

Nifty links outlining China's stance condemning the Dalai Lama's differing political views. That's not what we were discussing.

Well China clearly deems that the Dali Lama as a threat that endangers lives, threatens stability and a major threat to China's Security, which "is" what we are discussing.

BTW I've yet to see the classification level of the Doc's Wikileaks has posted.

Are they Confidential or Secret? I don't believe ANY Top Secret or Compartmentalized docs were released.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 05:19 PM

Well China clearly deems that the Dali Lama as a threat that endangers lives, threatens stability and a major threat to China's Security, which "is" what we are discussing.

I missed the part where the Dalai Lama exposed Chinese state secrets and endangered intelligence operatives and military personnel.

I even scrolled back and looked through your links.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 05:20 PM

Here we go, I found something -

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/11/wikileaks_newspapers_to_releas.html
About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

Fuck talk about blown way out of proportion .............................................

Anything remotely serious is Top Secret and Compartmentalized ...........

You can send up to Secret through the mail ............................

Pagan

12-09-2010, 05:23 PM

I missed the part where the Dalai Lama exposed Chinese state secrets and endangered intelligence operatives and military personnel.

I even scrolled back and looked through your links.

FYI that would be Top Secret and Compartmentalized documents, please show me anything Wikileaks has posted that meets that criteria.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 05:25 PM

FYI that would be Top Secret and Compartmentalized documents, please show me anything Wikileaks has posted that meets that criteria.

Sure! I've got that link right here :

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...to_releas.html
About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 05:33 PM

Sure! I've got that link right here :

Don't see Top Secret or Compartmentalized documents, as per my post please provide.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 05:41 PM

Don't see Top Secret or Compartmentalized documents, as per my post please provide.

I see.

So, let's do some math here. 6% of 250,000 is 15,000 secret classified documents.

Those belonged to the United States of America and were classified "Secret". Releasing those internationally as Wikileaks did would be exposing State secrets. 15,000 of them.

I can see you nervously eyeballing the Semantics dive you usually pull when seeing the corner looming. Don't. Do. It.

Would you like to freely admit that comparing Assange to the Dalai fucking Lama was foolish or shall we continue?

Pagan

12-09-2010, 05:52 PM

I see.

So, let's do some math here. 6% of 250,000 is 15,000 secret classified documents.

Those belonged to the United States of America and were classified "Secret". Releasing those internationally as Wikileaks did would be exposing State secrets. 15,000 of them.

I can see you nervously eyeballing the Semantics dive you usually pull when seeing the corner looming. Don't. Do. It.

Would you like to freely admit that comparing Assange to the Dalai fucking Lama was foolish or shall we continue?

Nope and why? China classifies the Dalai Lama as a major threat that endangers lives and stability to China as per their statements in the links I provided.

Up to Secret can be sent through mail, anything really sensitive or of real danger is either Top Secret or Compartmentalized.

Wikileaks is blown so way out of proportion it's humorous, but hey it's generating hits to Wikileaks isn't it?

FWI getting a Secret Clearance entails basically a credit check.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 05:56 PM

Up to Secret can be sent through mail, anything really sensitive or of real danger is either Top Secret or Compartmentalized.

Can't steal and distribute TOP secret cables but in your book it's ok to do so with just regular 'ol secret government documents? LOL

Whatever the "official" classification, state secrets were stolen and handed out like candy by Assange.

And then we have people like you who openly admit they find this "humorous", even though lives have been put at risk as a result.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 06:02 PM

Nope and why? China classifies the Dalai Lama as a major threat that endangers lives and stability to China as per their statements in the links I provided.

Alrighty then, let's forge ahead.

Vague statements about dangers the Dalai Lama poses to Chinese National Security won't fly.

Hard evidence. Let's see your backup about what the Dalai Lama has done to threaten the security of China.

I don't think quoting a communist following the party line will suffice, we need details as to what that hardened criminal has done!

Got anything in the AP? Anything at all?

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:07 PM

Can't steal and distribute TOP secret cables but in your book it's ok to do so with just regular 'ol secret government documents? LOL

Whatever the "official" classification, state secrets were stolen and handed out like candy by Assange.

And then we have people like you who openly admit they find this "humorous", even though lives have been put at risk as a result.

Where did I state that?

Or you just pulling yet something else out our ass?

In regards to "humorous" reality is "if" it was truly damaging they wouldn't classify it as OK to send through the local mail would they?

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:09 PM

Alrighty then, let's forge ahead.

Vague statements about dangers the Dalai Lama poses to Chinese National Security won't fly.

Hard evidence. Let's see your backup about what the Dalai Lama has done to threaten the security of China.

I don't think quoting a communist following the party line will suffice, we need details as to what that hardened criminal has done!

Got anything in the AP? Anything at all?

No Vague statement's, that's China's "official" position.

And if you didn't know The Communist Party "is" the Government of China.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:12 PM

Where did I state that?

Or you just pulling yet something else out our ass?

In regards to "humorous" reality is "if" it was truly damaging they wouldn't classify it as OK to send through the local mail would they?

Then why bother to classify it as "secret" - why not just classify it as "public domain" if it isn't an issue having them released? There's a reason they classified it as such and it should be treated as such.

And I still don't see anything funny at all when lives are potentially on the line.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 06:13 PM

No Vague statement's, that's China's "official" position.

That is vague. I know a bit about the Tibet controversy and why China officially doesn't like him.

Back on track, though, the Dalai Lama has not exposed Chinese State secrets OR endangered intelligence operative's lives OR recklessly admitted in the press that he had no qualms with doing so.

And if you didn't know The Communist Party "is" the Government of China.

No shit? :slap:

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:16 PM

I can see you nervously eyeballing the Semantics dive you usually pull when seeing the corner looming. Don't. Do. It.

Don't you love how the thread has turned from its original topic to the Dalai Lama, China and the humorous adventures of releasing secrets that aren't really secrets?

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 06:18 PM

Don't you love how the thread has turned from its original topic to the Dalai Lama, China and the humorous adventures of releasing secrets that aren't really secrets?

He's a real piece of work.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:18 PM

Then why bother to classify it as "secret" - why not just classify it as "public domain" if it isn't an issue having them released? There's a reason they classified it as such and it should be treated as such.

And I still don't see anything funny at all when lives are potentially on the line.

Why do you mail your letters in an envelope and not a post card?

Perspective, if it was truly damaging they would have classified it appropriately.

It's basically trying to compare someone who opens their neighbors mail then put's it out to the local "Gossip" mill to someone who traffics in Nuclear Arms.

Perspective check is in order here

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:19 PM

Back on track, though, the Dalai Lama has not exposed Chinese State secrets OR endangered intelligence operative's lives OR recklessly admitted in the press that he had no qualms with doing so.

You're wasting your time. He will NEVER admit that his comparison to the Dalai Lama was ignorant. But at least you got him to vomit up enough of his tripe to give me a good laugh.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:20 PM

Why do you mail your letters in an envelope and not a post card?

Perspective, if it was truly damaging they would have classified it appropriately.

It's basically trying to compare someone who opens their neighbors mail then put's it out to the local "Gossip" mill to someone who traffics in Nuclear Arms.

Perspective check is in order here

So giving actual names of informants in Afghanistan is something you would classify as being the same as information that can be sent via regular postal mail?

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:20 PM

He's a real piece of work.

Again show me anything that Wikileaks posted that is above just mailing it through the local mail.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:23 PM

So giving actual names of informants in Afghanistan is something you would classify as being the same as information that can be sent via regular postal mail?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/11/wikileaks_newspapers_to_releas.html

About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

Yes, up to Secret can be sent through the mail.

Again IMO this is so blown way out of proportion.

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:24 PM

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/11/wikileaks_newspapers_to_releas.html

About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

Yes, up to Secret can be sent through the mail.

Again IMO this is so blown way out of proportion.

Why did you avoid addressing my question about the informants in Iraq?

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:26 PM

Why did you avoid addressing my question about the informants in Iraq?

And when you admit that this information should have been kept as sensitive secret data, and probably under what your laughing about amongst your "6 percent"....

Why are you busy laughing about "only 6 percent" was marked as secret instead of pondering the damage that can be done from 6 percent of 250k documents. People can die as a result of this data being released and you think it's "blown out of proportion" and "humorous".

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:27 PM

Why did you avoid addressing my question about the informants in Iraq?

Again, show me any documentation that Wikileaks posted that is above Secret, you know that only requires mailing it through the local mail.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 06:28 PM

Again show me anything that Wikileaks posted that is above just mailing it through the local mail.

So, Wikileaks posting secret classified documents internationally and indiscriminately is no big deal, right?

I have no idea if those documents COULD have been mailed - that's your statement, I'd like to see your backup for this. The burden of proof is on you to back up your asinine statement.

As a side note - do you hammer booze and/or drugs? You have a very ...unique... mind and your logic follows in mysterious and baffling ways.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:28 PM

And when you admit that this information should have been kept as sensitive secret data, and probably under what your laughing about amongst your "6 percent"....

Why are you busy laughing about "only 6 percent" was marked as secret instead of pondering the damage that can be done from 6 percent of 250k documents. People can die as a result of this data being released and you think it's "blown out of proportion" and "humorous".

Because I'm waiting for any "really" sensitive information that was posted, you know Top Secret and above.

Don't you think that if it was sensitive it would be classified appropriately?

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:29 PM

So, Wikileaks posting secret classified documents internationally and indiscriminately is no big deal, right?

I have no idea if those documents COULD have been mailed - that's your statement, I'd like to see your backup for this. The burden of proof is on you to back up your asinine statement.

As a side note - do you hammer booze and/or drugs? You have a very ...unique... mind and your logic follows in mysterious and baffling ways.

As I posted above -

"Perspective, if it was truly damaging they would have classified it appropriately.

It's basically trying to compare someone who opens their neighbors mail then put's it out to the local "Gossip" mill to someone who traffics in Nuclear Arms.

Perspective check is in order here"

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:32 PM

Again, show me any documentation that Wikileaks posted that is above Secret, you know that only requires mailing it through the local mail.

So you don't care that the info was stolen and leaked and people might die, because the paperwork wasn't classified a certain way. But if it was marked as "top secret", then you would care that lives were at risk?

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 06:34 PM

Because I'm waiting for any "really" sensitive information that was posted, you know Top Secret and above.

Don't you think that if it was sensitive it would be classified appropriately?

Source for definitive proof on the classification of the documents. Not a paper from Cleveland that points to a source that is no longer accessible.

I'll wait for the source that definitively details which ones are which classification, then we can continue...

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 06:36 PM

As I posted above -

"Perspective, if it was truly damaging they would have classified it appropriately.

It's basically trying to compare someone who opens their neighbors mail then put's it out to the local "Gossip" mill to someone who traffics in Nuclear Arms.

Perspective check is in order here"

I see.

Not that it matters, but let's see your source that qualifies your statement that the Secret documents that were released are routinely sent via regular postal service.

After you enlighten all of us on the proper transmittal of secret information, let's discuss why exposing Classified Secret Information is okay, and where it says anywhere in U.S. law that releasing Secret Classified Documents is legal.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:39 PM

So you don't care that the info was stolen and leaked and people might die, because the paperwork wasn't classified a certain way. But if it was marked as "top secret", then you would care that lives were at risk?

Well if it was really truly Sensitive it would have been classified appropriately. Or are you saying they're too incompetent to know how to handle classified information?

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 06:43 PM

Source for definitive proof on the classification of the documents. Not a paper from Cleveland that points to a source that is no longer accessible.

I'll wait for the source that definitively details which ones are which classification, then we can continue...

This will be a nice scorecard when it's all added up with the points he's been pinned on and dashes off to another bizarre statement.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:46 PM

I see.

Not that it matters, but let's see your source that qualifies your statement that the Secret documents that were released are routinely sent via regular postal service.

After you enlighten all of us on the proper transmittal of secret information, let's discuss why exposing Classified Secret Information is okay, and where it says anywhere in U.S. law that releasing Secret Classified Documents is legal.

I maintained a Secret Clearance for 10 years, I know.

Look it up, google is a wonderful tool.

Is it a U.S. Crime, yes it is. And assholes like Manning needs to go to jail. I'm also fucking pissed that that asshole from Clinton's regime got away with stealing and destroying "Top Secret" and "Compartmentalized" documents. Nothing fucking happened to that traitorous bitch.

But what are we discussing? A Non Citizen who isn't in the U.S. being held to U.S. law. Which as I posted earlier sets a very nasty precedence for other country's to charge and arrest our citizens in our country.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 06:47 PM

This will be a nice scorecard when it's all added up with the points he's been pinned on and dashes off to another bizarre statement.

Aaah you sourced it also Slick which BTW I stated earlier that that was the only source I found that listed the levels.

So why did you source it also?

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 07:00 PM

Aaah you sourced it also Slick which BTW I stated earlier that that was the only source I found that listed the levels.

So why did you source it also?

Because I thought it was funny that I could reference your own quote to answer you.

You didn't?

Don't expect me to do your own homework again for you, but it seems you're not as knowledgeable as you'd like us to think you are when it comes to the handling of Secret information.

Straight from the State Dept. :
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123542.pdf

To send classified items up to SECRET from HST and Department
annexes to overseas posts in Category A (posts with access to the
military postal service) or Category C (posts with access to a diplomatic
post office), do not use the MPO or DPO address. Use the classified
diplomatic pouch. Single wrap the item. Use a complete return address
as described in 14 FAH-4 H-311.3 and a complete delivery address as
described in 14 FAH-4 H-311.4, paragraph b. Note classification
markings on both sides of the envelope and attach a completed Form OF-
120, Diplomatic Pouch Mail Registration. Send the item through the
Internal Mail and Messenger Service (IMMS), who will deliver it to DPM/C
at SA-8 for inclusion in the classified diplomatic pouch to post.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 07:05 PM

Because I thought it was funny that I could reference your own quote to answer you.

You didn't?

Don't expect me to do your own homework again for you, but it seems you're not as knowledgeable as you'd like us to think you are when it comes to the handling of Secret information.

Straight from the State Dept. :
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123542.pdf

14 FAH-4 H-323.2 Sending Classified Items from
Washington to Domestic Addressees
(CT:DPM-2; 05-06-2009)

a. To send classified items up to SECRET from HST and Department
annexes to domestic addressees by USPS Registered Mail, double wrap
and address the item per 14 FAH-4 H-322.2. Put the classification
marking and OF-112 on the inner envelope but not the outer envelope.
Put the red USPS Label 200 on the outer envelope. IMMS will take the
double-wrapped item to SA-44 for postage and mail the item via USPS
Registered Mail to the domestic addressee.
b. To send classified items up to SECRET from HST and Department
annexes to domestic addressees by USPS Express Mail, double wrap and
address the item per 14 FAH-4 H-322.2. Put the classification marking
and OF-112 on the inner envelope but not the outer envelope and deliver
the double-wrapped item directly to a USPS facility (see 12 FAM 536.9-3).
Put the double-wrapped item into the USPS Express Mail envelope, which
forms the third cover. Do not use a USPS drop box. The waiver of
signature block must not be executed. The Department does not
centrally fund USPS Express Mail costs and the IMMS will not send items
via USPS Express Mail. Sending offices must fund the purchase of USPS
Express Mail service.
c. To send classified items up to SECRET from HST and Department
annexes to domestic addressees by commercial transportation companies
such as FEDEX, double wrap and address the item per 14 FAH-4 H-322.2,
ensuring that the outer envelope is addressed to a specific individual. Put
the classification marking and OF-112 on the inner envelope but not the
outer envelope and deliver the double-wrapped item directly to a
representative of the commercial transportation company. Put the
double-wrapped item into the transportation company’s envelope, which
forms the third cover. Do not use a transportation company drop box.
The waiver of indemnity and signature block, where available, must not
be executed. Sending offices must pre-arrange pick-up with the receiving
office. The Department does not centrally fund transportation company
costs and the IMMS will not send items via commercial transportation
companies. Sending offices must fund the purchase of transportation
company services.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 07:09 PM

Did you catch the part where it says "Domestic Addresses"?
:slap:

Pagan

12-09-2010, 07:18 PM

Did you catch the part where it says "Domestic Addresses"?
:slap:

That's HST

Here -

http://www.wright.edu/rsp/Security/S1class/Mailing.htm

SECRET material may be transmitted by U.S. Postal Service registered mail or express mail within and between the United States and its territories. However, the "Waiver of Signature and Indemnity" block on the Express Mail Label 11-B may not be executed, and the use of external (street side) express mail collection boxes is prohibited. SECRET material may be sent through U.S. Postal Service registered mail through Army, Navy, or Air Force Postal Service facilities outside the United States, provided that the information does not at any time pass out of U.S. citizen control and does not pass through a foreign postal system or any foreign inspection. Federal Express may also be used for SECRET material for urgent, overnight delivery only, but contractors must receive approval from their government contracting authority to use this method.

When I was in the Marines we also sent to APO addy's via registered.

So clarification of "local" which was a bad choice of words on my part. It "must" stay in U.S. control and not go out of U.S. control. This would mean the base's APO addy which would go to like for example the base mail dump. My bad.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 07:35 PM

Pagan

12-09-2010, 07:44 PM

Excellent. Now we're making progress.

So, I think we can both agree that Secret diplomatic transmittals from overseas that were released by Wikileaks wasn't just mailed via postal entities.

That still doesn't really matter, I'm somewhat baffled as to why you thought that made any difference, but that settles that concern you thought pertinent.

We still have a couple of points to settle, so working backwards to unresolved issues....

Now, back to the Dalai Lama and your comparison of his offenses to Assange.

Got the list of offenses yet?

Don't know, but again it doesn't detract from the FACT that Secret can be mailed, (clarification "U.S. Mail").

As to you being Baffled, here once more let me post it for you yet again.

"Perspective, if it was truly damaging they would have classified it appropriately.

It's basically trying to compare someone who opens their neighbors mail then put's it out to the local "Gossip" mill to someone who traffics in Nuclear Arms.

Perspective check is in order here"

As for the Dalai Lama I've already posted the "Official Chinese" position that he is a substantial threat to the lives, safety and security of China. That's what the Chinese Government states so if you don't think he is take it up with the Chinese Embassy.

And in case you missed it .........

Is it a U.S. Crime, yes it is. And assholes like Manning needs to go to jail. I'm also fucking pissed that that asshole from Clinton's regime got away with stealing and destroying "Top Secret" and "Compartmentalized" documents. Nothing fucking happened to that traitorous bitch.

But what are we discussing? A Non Citizen who isn't in the U.S. being held to U.S. law. Which as I posted earlier sets a very nasty precedence for other country's to charge and arrest our citizens in our country.

Are we clear?

Pagan

12-09-2010, 07:52 PM

Here, let me further clarify my position.

"If" he comes into U.S. jurisdiction they yes, arrest him if they intend to charge him.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 08:11 PM

Don't know, but again it doesn't detract from the FACT that Secret can be mailed, (clarification "U.S. Mail").

So, where does domestic USPS mail traffic come into play here? We're talking about our Secret Classified documents from overseas being released by Wikileaks, yes?

And those are expressly forbidden to be treated in such a manner, as we already explored.

As to you being Baffled, here once more let me post it for you yet again.

"Perspective, if it was truly damaging they would have classified it appropriately.

I was unaware that the information that Assange released was inappropriately classified.

I'd like to see your source.

It's basically trying to compare someone who opens their neighbors mail then put's it out to the local "Gossip" mill to someone who traffics in Nuclear Arms.

Haven't we established that secret documents from overseas such as what Assange released are not "just mailed"?

As for the Dalai Lama I've already posted the "Official Chinese" position that he is a substantial threat to the lives, safety and security of China. That's what the Chinese Government states so if you don't think he is take it up with the Chinese Embassy.

Sorry, but Assange has publicly admitted to wrongdoing, in fact gloated about it in the press.

Accepting your assertion that the Dalai Lama has committed offenses against the Chinese based on propaganda from the Chinese with no proof other than their say-so would be foolish. If he had committed any legitimate offenses they would have provided it long ago.

It's okay, don't feel bad about your lack of producing a shred of evidence. It doesn't exist. Just admit you were wrong and we can dismiss this silly notion of yours & move ahead.

Did you believe "Baghdad Bob" when he was giving those statements about the American Infidels getting killed by the thousands? Sometimes thinking about the source and the credibility of that source goes a long way.

And in case you missed it .........

Is it a U.S. Crime, yes it is. And assholes like Manning needs to go to jail.

Good, we agree. Can we also agree that Assange should be going to jail as well?

But what are we discussing? A Non Citizen who isn't in the U.S. being held to U.S. law. Which as I posted earlier sets a very nasty precedence for other country's to charge and arrest our citizens in our country.

Yeah, but what can you do, right? Precedence has already been set a long time ago. Do we agree that Assange should be grabbed at our earliest convenience?

Are we clear?

I certainly hope so.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 08:37 PM

So, where does domestic USPS mail traffic come into play here? We're talking about our Secret Classified documents from overseas being released by Wikileaks, yes?

Yes and we are talking about a non-citizen who isn't in the U.S. nor in it's jurisdiction are we not?

And those are expressly forbidden to be treated in such a manner, as we already explored.

Yep, and me thinks "if" they were not classified appropriately maybe they need to get their shit together in regards to handling classified material, ya think?

I was unaware that the information that Assange released was inappropriately classified.

I'd like to see your source.

Well the only thing I've found is that one link and as I've asked a number of times in this thread show me the level of classification of the doc's. Nor have I stated that they were inappropriately classified, maybe my continual "perspective check" statements and the "if" should have given you a clue ya think?

Haven't we established that secret documents from overseas such as what Assange released are not "just mailed"?

Aaah no but that is requirements for handling are they not?
So that kinda shows what level of "sensitivity" they are ya think?

Sorry, but Assange has publicly admitted to wrongdoing, in fact gloated about it in the press.

Like I said, if he comes into the U.S. or U.S. occupied territory like Iraq then arrest and charge him.

Accepting your assertion that the Dalai Lama has committed offenses against the Chinese based on propaganda from the Chinese with no proof other than their say-so would be foolish. If he had committed any legitimate offenses they would have provided it long ago.

Well the Chinese think otherwise and again that goes to the core of the discussion here. Does a Country have the legal authority to charge a non citizen with a crime and go into another country to arrest them?

It's okay, don't feel bad about your lack of producing a shred of evidence. It doesn't exist. Just admit you were wrong and we can dismiss this silly notion of yours & move ahead.

Really, so those links I posted of the "Chinese Government's" statements are fiction then?

OK if you say so :lame2:

Did you believe "Baghdad Bob" when he was giving those statements about the American Infidels getting killed by the thousands? Sometimes thinking about the source and the credibility of that source goes a long way.

You wanna stay on topic?

Here, let me post it for you again what we're discussing yet AGAIN -

And in case you missed it .........

But what are we discussing? A Non Citizen who isn't in the U.S. being held to U.S. law. Which as I posted earlier sets a very nasty precedence for other country's to charge and arrest our citizens in our country.

Good, we agree. Can we also agree that Assange should be going to jail as well?

Like I said, if he comes into the U.S. then arrest and charge him

Yeah, but what can you do, right? Precedence has already been set a long time ago. Do we agree that Assange should be grabbed at our earliest convenience?

Above post

I certainly hope so.

Palin Rider

12-09-2010, 08:47 PM

But what are we discussing? A Non Citizen who isn't in the U.S. being held to U.S. law. Which as I posted earlier sets a very nasty precedence for other country's to charge and arrest our citizens in our country.

Um, I thought that was why the U.S. has extradition treaties with many other countries. To keep such activity to a minimum...

SassyLady

12-09-2010, 08:53 PM

Um, I thought that was why the U.S. has extradition treaties with many other countries. To keep such activity to a minimum...

I believe political crimes are exempt from extradition.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 09:06 PM

I believe political crimes are exempt from extradition.

Most are thus "Political Asylum"

jimnyc

12-09-2010, 09:11 PM

Most are thus "Political Asylum"

I believe that's when fleeing your own country for political persecution or religious beliefs - not when fleeing a country you don't live in but committed crimes against.

Pagan

12-09-2010, 09:39 PM

I believe that's when fleeing your own country for political persecution or religious beliefs - not when fleeing a country you don't live in but committed crimes against.

Generally yes, I'm not sure what entails a country's extradition of non citizens to another country.

But again to the point of criminal or political -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973_2.html?sid=ST2010112906806

All the experts agreed that it may be difficult for the United States to gain access to Assange, who apparently has avoided traveling to the country. Most nations' extradition treaties exempt crimes viewed as political. "I can imagine a lot of Western allies would view this not as a criminal act, but as a political act," said Weiss, who was on the legal team that defended the two former pro-Israel lobbyists.

NightTrain

12-09-2010, 09:52 PM

Well the only thing I've found is that one link and as I've asked a number of times in this thread show me the level of classification of the doc's. Nor have I stated that they were inappropriately classified, maybe my continual "perspective check" statements and the "if" should have given you a clue ya think?

Ah, the beauty of scrolling back to use your own words against you. I really do get a kick out of that.

Let's review, shall we?

You are the only one questioning the appropriate security level of the documents, you started about here :

Here we go, I found something -

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...to_releas.html
About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

Fuck talk about blown way out of proportion .............................................

Anything remotely serious is Top Secret and Compartmentalized ...........

You can send up to Secret through the mail ............................

Then you made the leap (all by yourself, you go-getter!) that the documents should have been a different classification - and then somehow wanted me to prove to yourself that they shouldn't have been at their classification :

FYI that would be Top Secret and Compartmentalized documents, please show me anything Wikileaks has posted that meets that criteria.

Then you wanted me to go find documents that you invented in the post before with this little gem :

Don't see Top Secret or Compartmentalized documents, as per my post please provide.

Then you assert that nothing of importance was leaked, because of the classification of secret and incorrectly tell us that they could have been sent though the mail because they were so unimportant :

Up to Secret can be sent through mail, anything really sensitive or of real danger is either Top Secret or Compartmentalized.

And here is where you made another assertion that the documents were inappropriately classified :

Why do you mail your letters in an envelope and not a post card?

Perspective, if it was truly damaging they would have classified it appropriately.

It's basically trying to compare someone who opens their neighbors mail then put's it out to the local "Gossip" mill to someone who traffics in Nuclear Arms.

Perspective check is in order here

Note that both Jim and I are still gamely trying to keep up with the mad twists and turns your logic takes at this point, but I'm not complaining.

Then you want me to answer and defend your own assertions with :

Again show me anything that Wikileaks posted that is above just mailing it through the local mail.

Again incorrectly you tell us that :

About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

Yes, up to Secret can be sent through the mail.

Again IMO this is so blown way out of proportion.

Then you want Jim to provide proof of your own incorrect assertion :

Again, show me any documentation that Wikileaks posted that is above Secret, you know that only requires mailing it through the local mail.

This is where I point out that it was YOUR statements that these documents were just mailed, and you respond with :

Because I'm waiting for any "really" sensitive information that was posted, you know Top Secret and above.

Don't you think that if it was sensitive it would be classified appropriately?

Your statements. Own them. I find it fascinating to watch you make statements, morph them, and then attempt to make others defend and support them - clearly forgetting you were the one that asserted them in the first place.

That's why I asked you if you were hammering drugs and/or booze.

Then you question the competency of those that handle the information that you've deemed inappropriately classified with :

Well if it was really truly Sensitive it would have been classified appropriately. Or are you saying they're too incompetent to know how to handle classified information?

When questioned about how you arrive at how secret documents are handled, you breezily wave off my concerns with :

I maintained a Secret Clearance for 10 years, I know.

So I checked, we corrected your error (despite your vast knowledge) and you acknowledged your error (kudos for that, little fella).

I trust that clears up your faulty memory regarding who was questioning the security levels of the information.

You're welcome.

Next!

Well the Chinese think otherwise and again that goes to the core of the discussion here. Does a Country have the legal authority to charge a non citizen with a crime and go into another country to arrest them?

Of course we do. We've done it. Remember you didn't know that and I showed you details of Operation Nifty Package?

Really, so those links I posted of the "Chinese Government's" statements are fiction then?

OK if you say so

Hoooo boy, here you go with the 2 warning signs I pointed out to Jim last week : The dreaded "Really" and following that the coup-de-grace "Ok if you say so". That indicates to me that you're about out of juice and you're going to bolt fast.

But in answer : No, those links you posted are lame. Any idiot would dismiss such tripe, even you. The Chinese don't have shit on him or they'd give proof.

abso

12-09-2010, 11:53 PM

Unfortunately, there will be nothing to end... It's too late to stop the damage he has started. He has given the cables to WAY too many people already and even secured the "worst of the worst" with passcodes that only he and his team have. I don't see any realistic way of stopping the rest of the cables being released at this point. All that will be left is the fallout/damage and the making of a martyr by so many who think divulging state and military secrets is a good thing for ANY country.

although i dont support killing him, but i do support shutting him down, spreading secrets in the open will only benifit the enemies of USA, and i believe that every country has the right to protect its security, and US cant protect its security while people are giving it military secrets for everyone on the planet, that may endanger innocent human lifes.

Assagne should be stopped, he has to stop by one way or another, maybe if he was just leaking political secrets or scandals, but military secrets is too much to be tolerated, i wont accept it if its my country's military secrets.

Pagan

12-10-2010, 12:49 AM

Ah, the beauty of scrolling back to use your own words against you. I really do get a kick out of that.

Let's review, shall we?

You are the only one questioning the appropriate security level of the documents, you started about here :

Then you made the leap (all by yourself, you go-getter!) that the documents should have been a different classification - and then somehow wanted me to prove to yourself that they shouldn't have been at their classification :

Then you wanted me to go find documents that you invented in the post before with this little gem :

Then you assert that nothing of importance was leaked, because of the classification of secret and incorrectly tell us that they could have been sent though the mail because they were so unimportant :

And here is where you made another assertion that the documents were inappropriately classified :

Note that both Jim and I are still gamely trying to keep up with the mad twists and turns your logic takes at this point, but I'm not complaining.

Then you want me to answer and defend your own assertions with :

Again incorrectly you tell us that :

Then you want Jim to provide proof of your own incorrect assertion :

This is where I point out that it was YOUR statements that these documents were just mailed, and you respond with :

Your statements. Own them. I find it fascinating to watch you make statements, morph them, and then attempt to make others defend and support them - clearly forgetting you were the one that asserted them in the first place.

That's why I asked you if you were hammering drugs and/or booze.

Then you question the competency of those that handle the information that you've deemed inappropriately classified with :

When questioned about how you arrive at how secret documents are handled, you breezily wave off my concerns with :

So I checked, we corrected your error (despite your vast knowledge) and you acknowledged your error (kudos for that, little fella).

I trust that clears up your faulty memory regarding who was questioning the security levels of the information.

You're welcome.

Next!

Of course we do. We've done it. Remember you didn't know that and I showed you details of Operation Nifty Package?

Hoooo boy, here you go with the 2 warning signs I pointed out to Jim last week : The dreaded "Really" and following that the coup-de-grace "Ok if you say so". That indicates to me that you're about out of juice and you're going to bolt fast.

But in answer : No, those links you posted are lame. Any idiot would dismiss such tripe, even you. The Chinese don't have shit on him or they'd give proof.

Yes pretty consistent

Core issue -

This is the point that I'm getting at, bottom line is that it comes down to "precedent". If we go yanking people out of other country's for violating our laws other country's can do the same since we are setting "precedent". You know like N. Korea sending their black ops down to S. Korea to take back those who have escaped.

Unless Assange goes to a country that we have an extradition treaty with and that's even "iffy" since this is a "political" crime which most all country's do not honor.

Send in the CIA to the EU or Australia to nab him and see the ramifications of such action.

Then also a "perspective" check since the subject of this thread is "When is it okay to publicy call for someones death?"

Here we go, I found something -

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/11/wikileaks_newspapers_to_releas.html
About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

Fuck talk about blown way out of proportion .............................................

Anything remotely serious is Top Secret and Compartmentalized ...........

You can send up to Secret through the mail ............................

You know, can't debate on substance so you sure like spinning all out of sorts don't you?

Bottom line

1. He's a Non U.S. Citizen who isn't even "in" the U.S.

2. This is blown way out of proportion since majority of the docs are unclassified and the few that are classified can be mailed through the U.S. mail.

Can't seem to get around that can you?

So you have anything of substance or you just wanna try to pull more out of your ass in your pathetic attempt to dilute reality there Slick?

jimnyc

12-10-2010, 07:25 AM

2. This is blown way out of proportion since majority of the docs are unclassified and the few that are classified can be mailed through the U.S. mail.

Maybe I missed something, but WHERE is the specific breakdown of the classification of each document you are mentioning? Not the source that no longer exists, is it?

And even if SOME documents could be mailed, I highly doubt that it would include names of informants used by the US in Afghanistan which would put lives at risk.

jimnyc

12-10-2010, 07:32 AM

Assuming we are going to stick with this stupid "us mail" semantics - why are we not all addressing the "supposed" 15,000 secret documents that Wiki leaked. If the rest can supposedly go through "regular US mail" - what about the 15,000 that were labeled otherwise - and what if many of those put lives at risk.

Even if they were in fact all stolen regular US mail, and someone stole them and lives were put at risk as a result - some of you see that as OK - as the person who owned the mail should have kept it as "top secret"?

Is it because it's funny, or humorous, that some don't care that others may die as a result?

NightTrain

12-10-2010, 08:43 AM

You know, can't debate on substance so you sure like spinning all out of sorts don't you?

I didn't think you'd continue after presented with the facts of who said what.

1. He's a Non U.S. Citizen who isn't even "in" the U.S.

We know that.

2. This is blown way out of proportion since majority of the docs are unclassified and the few that are classified can be mailed through the U.S. mail.

I see. So, contrary to U.S. laws, you've decided that this is was no big deal. You've even decided that all of these documents are no higher than a "secret" classification.

What fucking difference would it make if they could have been mailed? None! THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT MAILED VIA THE USPS BECAUSE THEY WERE OVER-FUCKING-SEAS! Even if they were, it doesn't change the fact that the secret documents were illegally disseminated!

So you have anything of substance or you just wanna try to pull more out of your ass in your pathetic attempt to dilute reality there Slick?

I think we've demonstrated who is pathetic.

Pull your head out of your ass and concede your lame Red Herring points or STFU.

Pagan

12-10-2010, 12:21 PM

I didn't think you'd continue after presented with the facts of who said what.

We know that.

I see. So, contrary to U.S. laws, you've decided that this is was no big deal. You've even decided that all of these documents are no higher than a "secret" classification.

What fucking difference would it make if they could have been mailed? None! THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT MAILED VIA THE USPS BECAUSE THEY WERE OVER-FUCKING-SEAS! Even if they were, it doesn't change the fact that the secret documents were illegally disseminated!

I think we've demonstrated who is pathetic.

Pull your head out of your ass and concede your lame Red Herring points or STFU.

Again the core issue is what?

He's a Non U.S. Citizen who isn't even "in" the U.S. and as I've stated a number of times, if he comes into the U.S. arrest him.

As for the level of classification, I've asked a number of times show me the level of classification of these docs. The only thing I've found is what I posted and as I stated "if" that's accurate it's blown way out of proportion.

Unless you have something please post it and stop wasting air.

I'll respond again "if" you have something.

jimnyc

12-11-2010, 10:44 AM

Interesting, I still don't see an "official" breakdown of the cables and the exact classifications. Pagan, you are continually going on about this "US Mail" thing but the only "proof" you have shown as to the exact classification of these documents is from a small newspaper in cleveland which points to another source which is non-existent.

I would like to see an official entity declare the classifications. I find it hard to believe that information abotu informants in Afghanistan would be sent around as the equivalent of regular mail.

But nonetheless, even if it were, it's still a HUGE breach and puts peoples lives at risk as a result.

But we should find it humorous and maybe have a wiki party as a result of potential deaths and destroyed relations with foreign entities. YEAH!!!

Will it still be humorous when an informant is killed? Will it still be humorous when foreign entities work/treat us differently as a result?

I'll quote what some fucking moron wrote here once - fucking pathetic.

abso

12-11-2010, 11:12 AM

Again the core issue is what?

He's a Non U.S. Citizen who isn't even "in" the U.S. and as I've stated a number of times, if he comes into the U.S. arrest him.

As for the level of classification, I've asked a number of times show me the level of classification of these docs. The only thing I've found is what I posted and as I stated "if" that's accurate it's blown way out of proportion.

Unless you have something please post it and stop wasting air.

I'll respond again "if" you have something.

since i got tired of reading this endless discussion which goes around in cricles :rolleyes:, i decided to intervene once again with just few simple questions which was probably answered before in previous replies:

1- Are you with or against arresting Julian Assange and prosecuting him according to the espionage act ?

2- Do you consider what Julian Assange did a violation of the espionage act ?

3- Do you think that Assange should be extradited to US ?

4- Do you believe that Assange endangered some people by puplishing US secrets ?

5- Do you think what Assange did was a breach to the national security of US ?

jimnyc

12-11-2010, 11:24 AM

since i got tired of reading this endless discussion which goes around in cricles :rolleyes:, i decided to intervene once again with just few simple questions which was probably answered before in previous replies:

1- Are you with or against arresting Julian Assange and prosecuting him according to the espionage act ?

2- Do you consider what Julian Assange did a violation of the espionage act ?

3- Do you think that Assange should be extradited to US ?

4- Do you believe that Assange endangered some people by puplishing US secrets ?

5- Do you think what Assange did was a breach to the national security of US ?

I know this was directed at Pagan, but I'd like to answer too!!

1- I'm all for prosecuting him in anyway they can. He was in possession of state secrets, which were stolen, and chose to endanger lives by releasing them. Also, they want non-stop donations. If not for their own stupidity and need for legal assistance - they don't need money to do what they did - so they want to profit from their legal activities as well.

2- Will likely never stick. The Act was formed almost 100 years ago and needs updating, especially after all of this. There's a case to be made, but IMO, I don't see any US courts upholding this.

3- I think he should be extradited from NO MATTER where he is, but I know we have treaties which outline this. I'd be willing to take the death penalty off the table if it meant getting him back here to be brought forth to justice, and hopefully spend a LOT of time behind bars.

4- This cannot be disputed. When you release the names of informants in Afghanistan... Hell, you can already be killed over there for much less - what do you think they will do when they find out people were coming forward to the US with information? And this is just the beginning of the cables. But there have already been lives put into risk and that much cannot be disputed - even if some do find it humorous.

5- Assange undoubtedly breached national security, and the military private even more so. Imagine if I came to Egypt and someone working with the government there somehow got a hold of years of confidential/secret documents - and I handed them out to every citizen of Egypt. Now, also consider that these documents put ANY lives at risk, even one... OF COURSE it would be a national security risk over there, just as it is here.

Transparency, freedom of speech, the right to know.... You hear all these phrases now. And while these ARE good things, some idiots also think it's a good thing even if it releases state and military secrets AND puts lives at risk. It's not a laughing matter and IS NOT humorous no matter how you slice and dice it.

abso

12-11-2010, 11:36 AM

I know this was directed at Pagan, but I'd like to answer too!!

1- I'm all for prosecuting him in anyway they can. He was in possession of state secrets, which were stolen, and chose to endanger lives by releasing them. Also, they want non-stop donations. If not for their own stupidity and need for legal assistance - they don't need money to do what they did - so they want to profit from their legal activities as well.

2- Will likely never stick. The Act was formed almost 100 years ago and needs updating, especially after all of this. There's a case to be made, but IMO, I don't see any US courts upholding this.

3- I think he should be extradited from NO MATTER where he is, but I know we have treaties which outline this. I'd be willing to take the death penalty off the table if it meant getting him back here to be brought forth to justice, and hopefully spend a LOT of time behind bars.

4- This cannot be disputed. When you release the names of informants in Afghanistan... Hell, you can already be killed over there for much less - what do you think they will do when they find out people were coming forward to the US with information? And this is just the beginning of the cables. But there have already been lives put into risk and that much cannot be disputed - even if some do find it humorous.

5- Assange undoubtedly breached national security, and the military private even more so. Imagine if I came to Egypt and someone working with the government there somehow got a hold of years of confidential/secret documents - and I handed them out to every citizen of Egypt. Now, also consider that these documents put ANY lives at risk, even one... OF COURSE it would be a national security risk over there, just as it is here.

Transparency, freedom of speech, the right to know.... You hear all these phrases now. And while these ARE good things, some idiots also think it's a good thing even if it releases state and military secrets AND puts lives at risk. It's not a laughing matter and IS NOT humorous no matter how you slice and dice it.

There is no problem at all in you answering them too ;)

and i agree with all your answers completely, thats why i directed my questions to pagan, because i really want to understand why he is objecting in this case, Julian Assange surely breached the national security by releasing secrets, no matter what their classification is, if they are secrets then they are meant to stay secrets, not to be puplished to the puplic, puplishing names of informants is a stupid act, it will put their lifes and the lifes of their families at risk.

i also believe that death penalty should be took off the table, i actually find it more suffering for him to spend years in jail, thats how journalists around the world will start to learn that secrets in any country is not a game to play with, and secrets shouldnt be used to gain more fame or money, they should respect the national security and stick with reports and news and leave secrets to its keepers.

jimnyc

12-12-2010, 09:49 AM

abso

12-12-2010, 10:11 AM

Abso, he's been here several times since you posed your questions and has read this thread as well. I guess he's not interested in answering the "tough" questions. Or maybe he's too busy laughing at this whole "humorous" episode. And if he finds just the leaking of informants names to be funny, maybe he's planning a party in case one dies?

maybe he is just tired of this discussion as all of us, anyway, i respect him and his opinions in alot of issues, but in this issue i just cant understand him, i think that he hasnt made himself clear enough about the issue, he says that US should arrest him if he enters USA, but then he argues about the classification of the secrets, so i couldnt understand his opinion, is he is in favour of arresting Assange or against it, does he agree that Assange committed a violation by puplishing this secrets or does he think that they are low classified info and it isnt a problem to puplish them.

anyway, i tried to keep my questions as simple as possible and as direct as they can be, so that everyone can answer them directly with no circles to go around them anymore.

jimnyc

12-12-2010, 10:26 AM

maybe he is just tired of this discussion as all of us, anyway, i respect him and his opinions in alot of issues, but in this issue i just cant understand him, i think that he hasnt made himself clear enough about the issue, he says that US should arrest him if he enters USA, but then he argues about the classification of the secrets, so i couldnt understand his opinion, is he is in favour of arresting Assange or against it, does he agree that Assange committed a violation by puplishing this secrets or does he think that they are low classified info and it isnt a problem to puplish them.

anyway, i tried to keep my questions as simple as possible and as direct as they can be, so that everyone can answer them directly with no circles to go around them anymore.

I've been arguing this Assange thing on multiple boards, and here's the funniest thing I have found out...

I have asked all of them what they thought of the "anonymous" people that are using DDOS attacks to bring down servers or harass those who are against Wikileaks. Everyone was together in condemning them.

So many of these idiots are quick to condemn someone from sending multiple requests to a website in order to slow it down, and think it's a huge crime and they should not be doing so - but at the same time have no problem with people stealing state secrets and distributing them. MANY are calling both Assange and the private who physically stole the documents to be "heroes". There's some really sick fucks out there!

abso

12-12-2010, 10:41 AM

I've been arguing this Assange thing on multiple boards, and here's the funniest thing I have found out...

I have asked all of them what they thought of the "anonymous" people that are using DDOS attacks to bring down servers or harass those who are against Wikileaks. Everyone was together in condemning them.

So many of these idiots are quick to condemn someone from sending multiple requests to a website in order to slow it down, and think it's a huge crime and they should not be doing so - but at the same time have no problem with people stealing state secrets and distributing them. MANY are calling both Assange and the private who physically stole the documents to be "heroes". There's some really sick fucks out there!

i agree, its really funny when people think of a traitor as a hero, the private who stole the documents should face the death penalty, someone who betray his own country and send its own secrets to others to puplish, should be punished with the maximum possible punishment, even if the secrets isnt very important, when we let a traitor go just because he stole low classified secrets, that will encourage others to steal and puplish more important secrets.

revelarts

12-15-2010, 08:41 AM

It's really sad to me see the lip service given to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And the Soviet style, "put him jail for speaking against the state," passion of some of the folks here. It's tragic. Sadly you may get your way. I hope you enjoy your "safety" because you don't really give a flip about your freedom, not really. That's obviously not what "we are fighting for".

Any way,
here's the another way the state is keeping us safe.
Now our Airforce guys won't know the names of informants and won't kill them. And they won't know sensitive information that might inform there work, their politics Or their votes. they should probably just vote as ordered anyway.
the gov't should probably BLOCK ALL US NEWS SITES from EVERYONE IN THE U.S.. Who knows what info might slip out that the terrorist might use to kill us. MAP MAKERS, are unpatriotic. Giving away sensitive sites all over the country. BLOCK onstar. It will help keep us safe. If you don't agree HOW MANY LIVES ARE YOU WILLING TO RISK IF onSTAR leads a terrorist to a Public SCHOOL?!!?!?!?!!!

oh Revelarts, you know noone is doing that... that's ridiculous, it could never happen here.

OK... wheres you line in the sand?
Where can't the gov't go in the name of safety and secrecy? the constitution isn't the limit so where is it?
WHERE?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1429593820101214

US Air Force blocks NY Times, Guardian over WikiLeaks
WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:35pm EST

WASHINGTON Dec 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force has blocked access for computers on its network to The New York Times (NYT.N), the Guardian, and at least 23 other websites carrying WikiLeaks documents, a spokesman said on Tuesday.

Major Toni Tones, a spokesperson at Air Force Space Command in Colorado, said the command blocked at least 25 websites that have posted WikiLeaks documents.

The Air Force "routinely blocks Air Force network access to websites hosting inappropriate materials or malware (malicious software) and this includes any website that hosts classified materials and those that are released by WikiLeaks," she said.

jimnyc

12-15-2010, 08:51 AM

Imagine that, the government blocking sites that contain illegal and confidential state secrets. What is this world coming to? Did you expect them to gather links and send them out to all their employees?

And why are you making it sound as if people are standing against freedom of speech or freedom of the press - when what we are standing against is theft, espionage and the endangering of lives?

jimnyc

12-15-2010, 08:55 AM

Let me ask you this to, Rev - is the government stopping ANYONE from actually reading these documents, or just doing so on company time and company computers?

Of course they can still forbid them from reading on their own time, and can legally for firing them for doing so (which ANY employer has the right to do) - but they still reserve the right to read the documents on the internet. I'm unsure where I see their "freedoms" being restricted - but I do see their terms of employment being restricted.

revelarts

12-15-2010, 11:21 AM

You haven't answered my questions as to where the line is for you Jim?
but to your questions.
I've never heard of businesses threatening firing for reading certain verboten news. Tell me about that Jim. NO reading of ANY non work related material on company time. OK, I'm with you there. But Don't read THIS newspaper Or THAT article OR ELSE?

However Service people give up their rights anyway when they join. Right?

But, Jim there just seems to be something wrong to me about the gov't telling a service person not to read the newspaper.
"Don't read anything but the gov't approved newspapers or else."
But maybe I'm just crazy.

jimnyc

12-15-2010, 07:06 PM

But maybe I'm just crazy.

I believe you are as there is NOTHING stopping these people from reading the papers, or cables, just like you and I - when they are on their own time.

And just so you know, ANY employer can simply fire you if they don't like the color of your shirt. This applies to the OVERwhelming majority of US employees. Some companies now will fire you for smoking, not on the job, but even on your own time. Are they stopping their employees from smoking? You bet, if they want to retain employment with them.

These people have jobs. Their job certainly doesn't call for them to be reading stolen documents from the very company paying them.

Anyway, these people CAN read the cables and CAN read thew papers, so I DO think you're stretching things a bit

revelarts

12-17-2010, 11:16 PM

sure Jim.

the FBI lawyer that tried to give info Pre-9-11 that could have stopped it says that if wikileaks was around 9-11 could have been prevented.

She says more open info makes us safer not more classifications.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20101015,0,5616717.story

WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if?
Frustrated investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks.

By Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic

October 15, 2010
If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.

The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential. Let us explain.

There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.

One of us, Coleen Rowley, was a special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division and worked closely with those who arrested would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on an immigration violation less than a month before the World Trade Center was destroyed....

audio interview with Rowley
http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/12/17/coleen-rowley-2/

revelarts

12-18-2010, 11:55 AM

So where the line in the sand Jim?
"Read only gov't approved papers or else" isn't it. so where?

jimnyc

12-18-2010, 11:59 AM

jimnyc

12-18-2010, 12:01 PM

So where the line in the sand Jim?
"Read only gov't approved papers or else" isn't it. so where?

How come YOU keep avoiding answering MY questions. I answered all of yours... WHAT is preventing these employees from visiting these sites with the cables on their own time, just like you and I do? NOTHING.

revelarts

12-18-2010, 02:25 PM

jimnyc

12-18-2010, 02:44 PM

I didn't know you were asking questions sounded more like statements.

So sure the employees can sneak a peak at home, and maybe pick up any paper they want, just not bring it to the office or else. Don't talk about or acknowledge what they learned or else. Better be careful not save it on their home computer just in case NSA-google- sends tracking info etc back to the higher ups. Maybe have to lie a bit on a few questions on the next security clearance review or else. Wonder what other news site that they missed might be verboten so avoid them on the job too.
Unless the Air Force is not serious about the ban/block/orders

Doesn't seem quite the same as you or me does it? A the very least it puts a dark cloud over your home internet surfing. Not exactly freedom in my book. but others here don't mind check points, unwarranted searches and ease dropping, pat downs, jail with no trails etc.. so by those standards maybe your right.

Every employer I have worked with to date has taken liberties with Internet access, and have a list of "blacklisted" domains that employees cannot access. Some are for obvious reasons like porn, and others are due to the industry one may be in - and it may make sense to block certain sites. The government aka employer is not doing anything that private companies don't already do to employees on a regular basis.

These people can ALL go home and have 100% unrestricted access if they so choose to.

It makes damn good sense IMO to prevent government employees from accessing the myriad sites out there containing the cables. It would look rather stupid if an audit were done and found government employees spending time on the internet, reading documentation that their employer has deemed as private/confidential.

But again, you're arguing over nothing. This is simply an employer dictating what an employer can do on the company dime - which EVERY employer in the USA already does. In fact, in 95% of places, you can be FIRED for simply reading these cables, on employer time or on personal time -and you have ZERO recourse. It's called "at will" employment. You're acting like the government banning "specific" websites is some sort of massive coverup/conspiracy/censorship - when every last one of these people have the freedom to just read the damn sites on their own time.

Just as we are all free to do what we want on our own time, employers are free to dictate what you do on their dime.

jimnyc

12-18-2010, 02:51 PM

Here's a link for ya, Rev

Companies block websites (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7lHNDw1NmnQBHi5XNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701-s&p=%2Bcompany+blocks+websites&fr2=sp-qrw-orig-top&norw=1)

You'll find a wealth of information on this very subject to who it's been going on for a LONG time. ANY good employer will restrict websites that don't pertain to the employees duties. Something tells me that reading STOLEN documents from the people who OWN the computers you are using - is NOT part of their employees duties.

They may not be able to stop sites from publishing the cables at this point, but they are 100% correct and 100% legally within their rights to block websites that publish STOLEN and CONFIDENTIAL information.

abso

12-18-2010, 03:56 PM

i dont believe that there is actually a debate about if blocking access to certain sites from a company computer or a government computer is legal or not.

of course its legal, every company has the right to choose what their workers do on their working time, you cant use the internet in you work to do whatever you want, to download or upload or chat.

companies have the right to benifit from the hours that they pay for us to work from them, be it a government agency or a private company, when we are at work, they tell us what to do and what not to do, but when we are at home, we are free to do whatever we want, so in my opinion, every company has the right to block any site that it doesnt want their workers to waste their time on, be it wikileaks or facebook or any other site, they have the right to filter the internet access for their workers, they pay our salary, they pay for the internet access itself, so we shouldnt be allowed to use that access in things that wont bring money to the company.

revelarts

12-19-2010, 07:07 PM

jimnyc

12-19-2010, 07:38 PM

You've yet to tell me your line in the sand.

you just keep telling me how good the gov't is
and how bad the newspapers are.
How a biz can or the gov't can can you at any minute if they don't like your looks, or what you read.

You sound like a good comrade Jim, the gov't can count on you to agree with them as long as a they put a right face on it.

Ok fine ,
but maybe I'm wrong about that.
but it seem weird that you get defensive when i ask how far you think the gov't should be allowed to go in defense of it's secrets and our "security"?

It's not a left wing question it should be a right wing one. "get the gov't out of our lives" "defend the constitution" etc.

so what the line?
It's not the constitution we've crossed that .
where is your line in this type of case?

It's real simple, I draw the line at them taking action outside of employment action. In other words, if they try to censor such sites from the citizens as other countries do. I have no problem whatsoever with them dictating what sites people can visit on THEIR computers and THEIR payroll.

To date the government has done nothing outside of what any private employer already does. Every employee affected has the same right as you and I to read these websites on their own time. The government can go as far as to tell their employees that they can't do so on their own time but the employee can legally do so without "legal" action, but the "employer" is free to fire them.

How 'bout that, freedom for the employer AND employee, whouda thunk it!

jimnyc

12-19-2010, 07:46 PM

Let me ask YOU a question or 2, as you now seem to be pulling lines from Pagan's playbook...

you just keep telling me how good the gov't is

SHOW me where I stated such. I defended their business decision and you're now twisting my words.

and how bad the newspapers are.

Again, SHOW me where I ever stated anything like that. The only one's I condemned was the private and the Wiki team.

That was 2x you literally placed things in my mouth that I never said. Backup your statements, or UNlike Pagan, admit I never made those comments.

How a biz can or the gov't can can you at any minute if they don't like your looks, or what you read.

This sentence doesn't really make sense, but I think you're referring to my statement about how a private company or government employee working "at will" can be fired legally for ANY reason or NO reason, so long as the reason is not against the law. Sorry if you don't like the LAW, but it is what it is.

but it seem weird that you get defensive when i ask how far you think the gov't should be allowed to go in defense of it's secrets and our "security"?

Defensive? How so? By stating AND proving that what they do is normal business practice and NOT censorship as you would have others believe?

revelarts

12-27-2010, 10:32 AM

It's real simple, I draw the line at them taking action outside of employment action. In other words, if they try to censor such sites from the citizens as other countries do. I have no problem whatsoever with them dictating what sites people can visit on THEIR computers and THEIR payroll.

To date the government has done nothing outside of what any private employer already does. Every employee affected has the same right as you and I to read these websites on their own time. The government can go as far as to tell their employees that they can't do so on their own time but the employee can legally do so without "legal" action, but the "employer" is free to fire them.

How 'bout that, freedom for the employer AND employee, whouda thunk it!

Fine Jim.
FYI

From transcript interview Democracy now weds dec 15 2010

...Now, I want to go on to another memo. Democracy Now! has obtained the text of a memo that’s been sent to employees at USAID. This is to thousands of employees, about reading the recently released WikiLeaks documents, and it comes from the Department of State. They have also warned their own employees. This memo reads, quote, "Any classified information that may have been unlawfully disclosed and released on the Wikileaks web site was not 'declassified' by an appopriate authority and therefore requires continued classification and protection as such from government personnel... Accessing the Wikileaks web site from any computer may be viewed as a violation of the SF-312 agreement... Any discussions concerning the legitimacy of any documents or whether or not they are classified must be conducted within controlled access areas (overseas) or within restricted areas (USAID/Washington)... The documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or stored on your USAID unclassified network computer or home computer; they should not be printed or retransmitted in any fashion."

That was the memo that went out to thousands of employees at USAID. The State Department has warned all their employees, you are not to access WikiLeaks, not only at the State Department, which they’ve blocked, by the way, WikiLeaks, but even on your home computers. Even if you’ve written a cable yourself, one of these cables that are in the trove of the documents, you cannot put your name in to see if that is one of the cables that has been released. This warning is going out throughout not only the government, as we see, but to prospective employees all over the country,

Mod edit: first I find is Dec. 3rd. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CIMOLRPTCX0J:www.democracynow.org/2010/12/3/is_wikileaks_julian_assange_a_hero+Democracy+Now!+ has+obtained+the+text+of+a+memo+that%E2%80%99s+bee n+sent+to+employees+at+USAID.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

jimnyc

12-27-2010, 10:44 AM

Again, I thought I covered this. It's no different than companies who forbid their employees from smoking, even on their own time. They are protecting THEIR interests.

There is NOTHING stopping these employees from being able to read these cables. It's strictly a business decision for the agencies to forbid their employees. The worst they can do is fire someone, but they can already do that if they don't like the smell of your breath on a certain day.

Hell, for that fact, pretty much over 90% of the employers in the nation can fire you as well for reading the cables.

You apparently have a confusion between censorship and an employer/employee relationship.

And lastly, I believe it states that there is an agreement that these employees agreed to (SF-312?). If this is the case, do you think they should not have to abide by agreements they made when they were hired?

You are trying your hardest to show that the government is exercising "censorship" in this case, and you're failing miserably, either that or you 100% clueless about what makes up an employer/employee relationship and/or contract.

jimnyc

12-27-2010, 10:45 AM

Fine Jim.
FYI

From transcript interview Democracy now weds dec 15 2010

Btw - can we get a link to this ORIGINAL interview in it's entirety?

jimnyc

12-27-2010, 10:51 AM

Rev - here is what the employees signed when they got their jobs with the government. Can you tell my why you now think they shouldn't abide by what they already signed and agreed to? I fail to see a reason to have ANY rules or agreements when hiring people if we have no intention of following them.

SF-312:

Standard Form 312 (SF 312) is a non-disclosure agreement required under Executive Order 13292 to be signed by employees of the U.S. Federal Government or one of its contractors when they are granted a security clearance for access to classified information. The form is issued by the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives and Records Administration and its title is "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement." SF 312 prohibits confirming or repeating classified information to unauthorized individuals, even if that information is already leaked. The SF 312 replaces the earlier forms SF 189 or the SF 189-A. Enforcement of SF-312 is limited to civil actions to enjoin disclosure or seek monetary damages and administrative sanctions, "including reprimand, suspension, demotion or removal, in addition to the likely loss of the security clearance."

Kathianne

12-27-2010, 10:51 AM

Btw - can we get a link to this ORIGINAL interview in it's entirety?

I may be wrong, but I think I just added the link from Dec. 3rd. Let's just say that Glen Greenwald is involved. 'Nuff said.

jimnyc

12-27-2010, 10:53 AM

I may be wrong, but I think I just added the link from Dec. 3rd. Let's just say that Glen Greenwald is involved. 'Nuff said.

Either way, the interview clearly points to an official government document that all of these employees signed and agreed to. Now Rev thinks that they shouldn't have to abide by the employer/employee relationship and terms agreed upon.

jimnyc

12-27-2010, 10:59 AM

More good reading on the subject:

UNCLASSIFIED//

ROUTINE

R 192014Z AUG 10

BT
UNCLAS
FM SECNAV WASHINGTON DC
TO ALNAV

BT
UNCLAS
ALNAV 055/10
COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//CG-2/CG-6//
COGARD CYBERCOM WASHINGTON DC
COMCOGARD CRYPTO GROUP FT MEADE MD

MSGID/GENADMIN/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC/-/AUG//

SUBJ/SAFEGUARDING CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION//

REF/A DOC/DON/30JUN2006//

REF/B DOC/WHITE HOUSE/29DEC2009//

NARR/ REF A IS SECNAV M-5510.36, DON INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM.
REF B IS EXECUTIVE ORDER 13526, CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY
INFORMATION.
POC/BRIDGET OUELLETTE/CIV/CNO N09N2/LOC: WASHINGTON DC/TEL: 202-433-
8842/EMAIL: BRIDGET A. OUELLETTE(AT)NAVY.MIL// POC/DAN
DELGROSSO/CIV/DONCIO/LOC: WASHINGTON DC/TEL: 703-607-5652/EMAIL:
DAN.DELGROSSO(AT)NAVY.MIL//

RMKS/1. RECENT EVENTS INVOLVING THE POSTING OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE
SENSITIVE AND POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
(NSI) TO A PUBLIC WEBSITE HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED TO:
A. REINFORCE HOW PERSONNEL STORE AND DISTRIBUTE NSI.
B. REMIND PERSONNEL OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO SAFEGUARD NSI
COMMENSURATE WITH THE LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNED PER REF A, UNTIL
THE INFORMATION IS DECLASSIFIED BY THE APPROPRIATE ORIGINAL
CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY (OCA).

2. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (DON) PERSONNEL MUST ENSURE CLASSIFIED NSI
IS ONLY SHARED WITH THOSE WITH AN AUTHORIZED CLEARANCE, ACCESS, NEED TO
KNOW, AND ONLY VIA AUTHORIZED CHANNELS AND SYSTEMS. ACTIVITIES TO THE
CONTRARY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF PLACING OUR FELLOW SAILORS, MARINES AND
CIVILIANS AT RISK, AND WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. PERSONNEL WHO
INTENTIONALLY PROPAGATE OR MISHANDLE CLASSIFIED NSI IN VIOLATION OF
EXISTING REGULATIONS MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE OR PUNITIVE
ACTION.

3. THIS MESSAGE APPLIES TO ALL DON MILITARY, CIVILIAN, AND CONTRACTOR
SUPPORT PERSONNEL.

4. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE APPEARANCE OF POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, REGARDLESS OF MEDIUM OR PLATFORM,
DOES NOT INDICATE THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE RESPECTIVE
ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY, DECLASSIFIED, AND CLEARED FOR PUBLIC
RELEASE. AS STATED IN REF B, SECTION 1.1(4)(C), (QUOTE) CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE DECLASSIFIED AUTOMATICALLY AS A RESULT OF ANY
UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR INFORMATION (END
QUOTE). THEREFORE, DON PERSONNEL SHALL:
A. NOT CONFIRM OR DENY THE EXISTENCE OF POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED NSI
IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND REPORT THE INCIDENT PER REF A, CHAPTER 12.
B. NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE FURTHER DISSEMINATION OF POTENTIALLY
CLASSIFIED NSI ON DON UNCLASSIFIED IT SYSTEMS BY ACCESSING WEBSITES OR
ANY OTHER INTERNET BASED CAPABILITY (IBC) (E.G., TWITTER, FACEBOOK,
ETC.) TO VIEW, COPY, OR FORWARD THIS INFORMATION.
C. ENSURE CLASSIFIED NSI IS ONLY SHARED WITH PERSONNEL WITH AN
AUTHORIZED CLEARANCE, ACCESS, NEED TO KNOW, AND ONLY VIA AUTHORIZED
CHANNELS AND SYSTEMS.
D. PROTECT CLASSIFIED NSI COMMENSURATE WITH THE LEVEL OF
CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNED PER REF A, UNTIL THE INFORMATION IS
DECLASSIFIED BY THE APPROPRIATE OCA.
E. ADHERE TO THE SERVICES SYSTEMS AUTHORIZATION ACCESS REQUEST
FORM (SAAR; I.E. USER AGREEMENT FORM) FOR THE PROTECTION OF INFORMATION
RESIDING ON DON NETWORKS.
F. ADHERE TO THEIR NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (SF-312) WHEN GRANTED
A SECURITY CLEARANCE.

5. THE INFORMATION AGE REQUIRES WE VALIDATE AND REDEFINE AS
APPROPRIATE OUR PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF
POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED NSI ON THE INTERNET IN THE EVENT IT MIGRATES TO
THE DON UNCLASSIFIED NETWORK DOMAIN. THEREFORE, I HAVE TASKED DON CIO,
DON INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM AUTHORITY (CNO N09N), CHINFO, HQMC AND
OPNAV TO RECOMMEND A COURSE OF ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS, ON REVISED
REPORTING, MITIGATION AND DISPOSITION PROCEDURES. IN THE INTERIM,
ADHERENCE TO PARA 4 ABOVE IS PARAMOUNT -- REGARDLESS OF THE MAGNITUDE
OF DISCLOSURE -- IN ORDER TO AVOID FURTHER PROLIFERATION OF
POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED NSI ON UNAUTHORIZED SYSTEMS.

6. DON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBERSPACE CAPABILITIES SHOULD BE
USED TO ENABLE OUR WARFIGHTERS, PROMOTE INFORMATION SHARING IN DEFENSE
OF OUR HOMELAND, AND TO MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCIES IN OPERATIONS, NOT AS A
MEANS TO UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY EFFORTS. I EXPECT EACH
INDIVIDUAL SAILOR, MARINE, CIVILIAN AND CONTRACTOR SUPPORT PERSONNEL TO
DO THEIR PART.

7. QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS MESSAGE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE APPROPRIATE
POCS IDENTIFIED ABOVE. REFER MEDIA QUERIES REGARDING POTENTIALLY
CLASSIFIED NSI IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO THE CHINFO MEDIA OPERATIONS DESK
AT (703) 697-5342.

8. RELEASED BY RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/2F7A186D-7FCA-4CE2-932D-AC2D0C09A51C/0/ALN10055.txt

revelarts

12-27-2010, 11:42 PM

jimnyc

12-28-2010, 09:36 AM

the agreement was edited and added during Clinton and Bush, more of the creeping soviet style bureaucracy. It's law now but it wasn't or at least the details where less -totalitarian- in the mild soft kinda way we like it here.
you mentioned several times that they are free "just like u and me to read the papers docs etc." well free to do it but with a threat over their heads. It's not just like not smoking. which is a stretch IMO for a job requirement. But its a demand to self censor. AT HOME, and the LIBRARY, or the NEWSSTAND. No need to force people censor with a threat of jail when a mild threat will do.
the Mafia doesn't break your fingers if you do what they ask. Even after you mess up the 1st or 2nd time.

As I said before. Docs are out in the publuc domain at this point. it is rediculous for those that work in the gov't to be unaware of what both our friends and enemies have free and detailed access to. Best to make lemonade out of a big bag of lemons and get our people aware of what could be used against us and how to respond to the reactions the info might cause.
But that just makes to much sense i guess. a secret is still somehow a secret once everyone knows it. Everyone pretend like it was never revealed. Everyone in the gov't should forget that they know Valerie Plame was a CIA agent while your at it and the firm she was working for was a CIA front it WAS classified info that was never unclassified, right?

It's real easy - DON'T agree to the terms you sign - find employment suitable to your liking - and read the cables til your eyes bleed!

But if you CHOOSE to work for an organization that holds classified documents, be prepared - they might actually want to keep those documents classified/secret - hence the signing of the document pre-employment.

And my last reply to you since this is going in a death circle - this is NOT censorship - it's simply what ANY business would AND should do to protect their classified interests. ANY company NOT doing so would be remiss and should NOT be in control of classified material to begin with.

IT IS AN EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE BUSINESS DECISION. IF IT WERE GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL OF US.

Hell, I had to sign a confidentiality agreement at a law firm I worked for and a beverage distributor. And I'm sure if it came down to it, they would enforce those agreements if it were in their businesses best interest.

And once again - you make it sound like they are threatening them. WHO threatened them when they took the damn good job they got and WHO forced them to sign the confidentiality agreements and stipulations on how confidential information is handled?

Keep disagreeing all you like, all you're doing is showing me that you don't know jack shit about how a business operates and how a business protects its interests.

And you keep yammering on about "censorship" and yet pretty much the entire world has been sitting back reading these cables. Amazing how it's ONLY the employees who signed the agreements that are being told to avoid this sensitive material. If it's government censorship, and not employer/employee agreements like I stated - then how come you and I have no issue reading these cables?