More Paypal idiots

[Honorbound]

Julian Assange the wikileaks founder who has been in the news much lately was cut off from his paypal account today. Even if you don't agree with this guys politics, paypal is making a political statement by doing this.

Also he was cut off from his account, which means they can do the same to any of you that have an account. A bank going after somebody for being unethicial is about as hypocritical as you can get.

Don't just take my word for things there are plenty of posts on Wikileaks and plenty of other places including this one.


I'm emailing Paypal ketting them know I'm not happy. If that doesn't work, I might delete my acount. Seriously, it's time to pick sides. If you don't see the good that these and future leaks will do to the global society, specially to the poorest and neediest in the world... If you can't see how having government, corporations, everyone being held accountable for the s*it they say, the things they do... Sorry Paypal, you're not getting any more fees from me. Your service is bad, deals with international markets on a stupid way, takes too long and is a lot more expensive and complicated than Western Union. In other words, you suck. It was not nice dealing with you.

Posted by: Breno | December 4, 2010 12:03 AM

[Honorbound]

Paypalsucks.org is epic.... Must read for all those who blindly demanded I use paypal a few months back.....

[kookiegod]

Julian Assange the wikileaks founder who has been in the news much lately was cut off from his paypal account today. Even if you don't agree with this guys politics, paypal is making a political statement by doing this.

Also he was cut off from his account, which means they can do the same to any of you that have an account. A bank going after somebody for being unethicial is about as hypocritical as you can get.

Don't just take my word for things there are plenty of posts on Wikileaks and plenty of other places including this one.


I'm emailing Paypal ketting them know I'm not happy. If that doesn't work, I might delete my acount. Seriously, it's time to pick sides. If you don't see the good that these and future leaks will do to the global society, specially to the poorest and neediest in the world... If you can't see how having government, corporations, everyone being held accountable for the s*it they say, the things they do... Sorry Paypal, you're not getting any more fees from me. Your service is bad, deals with international markets on a stupid way, takes too long and is a lot more expensive and complicated than Western Union. In other words, you suck. It was not nice dealing with you.

Posted by: Breno | December 4, 2010 12:03 AM

Ummm, no.

Under the US Patriot Act, United States banks have a legal duty to not deal with those considered to be criminals, mafia, engaging in criminal acts, etc. He has been called an 'enemy combatant' by several and I look forward to have him answer those charges in a US court.

I am all for the First Ammendment, and I agree he has a right to say what he wants, but like shouting 'FIRE!" in a crowded room, he is putting lives at risks with his reckless disclosures of confidential and classified information. When we find those who gave that information out, I am hoping they are executed as traitors to their country.

Paypal is NOT making a political statement, they are complying with the law.

Heck, I even agree we need to keep people accountable, but what he is doing is reckless. He's putting lives in danger releasing poorly redacted information, making it hard for diplomats to trust each other (and lets be honest, diplomats == spies, we all knew this, its just out now, /laugh)

Feel free to use an archaic service, but sooner or later, Western Union won't take his money either. He's a criminal, a possible terorrist, a possible rapist, and he needs to answer these charges and not hide.

~Paul

[Wrathbringer]

:yes2:

[Honorbound]

Heck, I even agree we need to keep people accountable, but what he is doing is reckless. He's putting lives in danger releasing poorly redacted information, making it hard for diplomats to trust each other (and lets be honest, diplomats == spies, we all knew this, its just out now, /laugh)<<<<

I don't have the time or inclination to educate you little children today. This is just the crap being used to keep people inprisoned in Guantanamo for years and years now without being charged with a crime.

The way we know they are badguys is too secret to bring out in court, sooooo just take our words for it and just let us continue to violate these people's human rights. If you can't understand why that is a very bad thing, you need much much more booklearning.

[mikewstarr]

i learned long ago i can't fix all the injustices in the world. you pick one thing here and there are many more as important if not more. i wasn't born to pick sides, save the world, but, what i want to know is, what the hell are you auctioning in this folder? kthnx

[Firestorm Killa]

Why is this in the AUCTION folder and not the POLITICS or NEWS Folder?

[Sam]

Man fuck that, I'm deleting my paypal acount right now. Wait, nope, don't care. I'll bid 1m ($7)

[JHarris]

The one thing that can be said for certain is that, whenever someone argues that one side of a political debate is ABSOLUTELY wrong, they are absolutely wrong.

[Rallorick]

holy shit... how much of your life has this absorbed??

moveon.... dot org.

[Wharde]

Ummm, no.

Under the US Patriot Act, United States banks have a legal duty to not deal with those considered to be criminals, mafia, engaging in criminal acts, etc. He has been called an 'enemy combatant' by several and I look forward to have him answer those charges in a US court.

I am all for the First Ammendment, and I agree he has a right to say what he wants, but like shouting 'FIRE!" in a crowded room, he is putting lives at risks with his reckless disclosures of confidential and classified information. When we find those who gave that information out, I am hoping they are executed as traitors to their country.

Paypal is NOT making a political statement, they are complying with the law.

Heck, I even agree we need to keep people accountable, but what he is doing is reckless. He's putting lives in danger releasing poorly redacted information, making it hard for diplomats to trust each other (and lets be honest, diplomats == spies, we all knew this, its just out now, /laugh)

Feel free to use an archaic service, but sooner or later, Western Union won't take his money either. He's a criminal, a possible terorrist, a possible rapist, and he needs to answer these charges and not hide.

~Paul

:thumbup:

[GTG]

F politics - OIF veteran.

2m (14$) Brute

[septus]

Paypal is not a bank. They've also suspended peoples accounts for much less than this.

Edit: oh, and since paypal is not a bank any money you keep in paypal is not protected.

[TheEschaton]

Ummm, no.

Under the US Patriot Act, United States banks have a legal duty to not deal with those considered to be criminals, mafia, engaging in criminal acts, etc. He has been called an 'enemy combatant' by several and I look forward to have him answer those charges in a US court.

I am all for the First Ammendment, and I agree he has a right to say what he wants, but like shouting 'FIRE!" in a crowded room, he is putting lives at risks with his reckless disclosures of confidential and classified information. When we find those who gave that information out, I am hoping they are executed as traitors to their country.

Paypal is NOT making a political statement, they are complying with the law.

Heck, I even agree we need to keep people accountable, but what he is doing is reckless. He's putting lives in danger releasing poorly redacted information, making it hard for diplomats to trust each other (and lets be honest, diplomats == spies, we all knew this, its just out now, /laugh)

Feel free to use an archaic service, but sooner or later, Western Union won't take his money either. He's a criminal, a possible terorrist, a possible rapist, and he needs to answer these charges and not hide.

~Paul

I didn't realize calling someone an enemy combatant made them one, Joe McCarthy. He's not a criminal, or a terrorist, and certainly not a rapist.

And really, executed for leaking diplomatic cables? Shut the fuck up Paul, that's crazy.

[kookiegod]

I didn't realize calling someone an enemy combatant made them one, Joe McCarthy. He's not a criminal, or a terrorist, and certainly not a rapist.

And really, executed for leaking diplomatic cables? Shut the fuck up Paul, that's crazy.

Ummm, its a bit more than that. Lets start with the leaks from Iraq and Afghanistan that put troops on the ground possibly at risk. As far as the cables, there is a lot more to come out and some highly confidential information or just data analysis has come out that makes it hard for our people to work in the world (even though, as I said, they do it to. Diplomats == spies generally). Putting lives and national security at risk is generally called 'treason' if you are a US citizen, as espionage if not.

And as I said, you're correct, he's not been adjudicated of any crime yet, bu treason is a crime under the USMJ, as PFC Manning will find out if he's convicted of it. Mr. Assuage is welcome to answer these charges as well, but he's cutting his hair and hiding underground like a modern day Salman Rushdie.

He IS wanted currently in Sweden for rape with a worldwide Interpol search for him, to which charges he needs to answer directly. Terrorist perhaps, and criminal is for a court to determine, not you or me.

Just so we clear on the laws, here is what the US code says about publishing the diplomatic cables alone...

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > § 952

Diplomatic codes and correspondence

Whoever, by virtue of his employment by the United States, obtains from another or has or has had custody of or access to, any official diplomatic code or any matter prepared in any such code, or which purports to have been prepared in any such code, and without authorization or competent authority, willfully publishes or furnishes to another any such code or matter, or any matter which was obtained while in the process of transmission between any foreign government and its diplomatic mission in the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

So whomever sent those out could get 10 years...

As far as PFC Manning, under treason under the UCMJ...

c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”

I'd say 2 and 3 fall under that.

I'm definitely not advocating continuing the Bush years no holds barred and screw the Constitution TheE, but gimme a break, this isn't McCarthyism, this guy is wanted as a criminal, and we have a reasonable suspicision he needs to answer that he has leaked national secrets and is helping the enemy.

Sorry you disagree but you are entitled to it, like me.

~Paul

[septus]

Ummm, its a bit more than that. Lets start with the leaks from Iraq and Afghanistan that put troops on the ground possibly at risk. As far as the cables, there is a lot more to come out and some highly confidential information or just data analysis has come out that makes it hard for our people to work in the world (even though, as I said, they do it to. Diplomats == spies generally). Putting lives and national security at risk is generally called 'treason' if you are a US citizen, as espionage if not.


I've heard a lot of this 'these leaks have endangered lives' from the media and such, yet I haven't heard a single example actually cited. Do you have any specifics on these leaks that put them at risk? Possibly at risk is rather vague. I can say that walking out of my door possibly puts pedestrians at risk because I might get in my car and accidentally run them over.

[septus]

And on an unrelated note, can a mod move this to another category?

[Archigeek]

Putting lives and national security at risk is generally called 'treason' if you are a US citizen, as espionage if not.

While I'm not convinced this guy's doing anything good, I think your definition of treason is overly broad. I do get your intent though Paul.

This guy releases so much stuff, that not even he can know what it all is. The volume is disturbing. His acts are reckless, and I think you got that right in your first response for sure. Personally, I think he's just going to vanish, and not by his own accord.

You can't threaten to out the dirty deeds of dozens of countries and expect there to be no response, nor can you put a lot of people's lives unecessarily at risk or destroy a lot of very hard won intel and expect no response. And I can't expect the response to be a sternly worded letter. People will just never know if he went into hiding, or if his body went into hiding.

[Wharde]

These documents have aired the opinions of Americans folks within the Foreign Service. That's pretty much it. In and of itself, it ought to be fairly innocent. These folks are doing their job as it's been done for a long time - forwarding thoughts, impressions, etc.

However, by making mountains out of molehills, we now have added friction were none was needed:

1) Korea problem and someone's opinion of China's thoughts. Bigger chance of war? Less chance of peace in the near future?
2) Afghanistan problems may have worsened.
3) General attitude towards America, Americans and their policies have become more negative.
4) Making fools of many national leaders has accomplished what? Certainly nothing positive. Possibly something quite negative.

I'm sitting hear reading what these documents are saying about Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Stoltenberg, Putin and Medvedev - and I fail to see anything positive about Wikileaks (nuclear bomb-type) policy.

What is the endgame? What goal are they reaching for? Is Wikileaks trying to suggest that Clinton and Obama aren't up to the job? Better ways could have been found to accomplish this. Less harmfull ways. As it stands right now they are somewhat reminiscent of pre-WWI anarchists. Naive idiots who caused death and damage beyond belief. (Please don't mention that trite transparency shite.)

[Warriorbird]

Just as an added note... not using a condom and having sex with two women unprotected is a pretty different definition of rape than what we typically use, Paul.

Most of your rest was pretty spot on though.

[prance1520]

I have a very successful friend who is relocating to Switerland. UBS won't even talk to him about opening an account because he's American and the relations with the US government wanting information pertaining to fraud. While my friend is far from Madoff part deux, I'm pretty sure the right to a bank account doesn't rank up near the inherient rights to life and liberty. If they want to close his account, go them.

On a side note, this wikileaks guy is a sleezeball. He's the Jerry Springer of relationships that might actually matter. I'll be very disappointed if my great grandkids are reading about how this assclown changed world history in their textbooks.

[Back]

This post by Rady sums it all up. Don’t kill the messenger.



You're conflating the acts of Bradley Manning with those of Wikileaks. Wikileaks is solely a safe platform for the release of information. They're essentially a journalistic entity. They publish, or more closely they furnish a medium for the publication of the information of their sources. And, unlike most of our mainstream print and television media, they don't filter because of politics. It's one of the best platforms for a free press that I could ever imagine.

Trusting those in power beyond any repute, no matter how trustworthy they claim to be, is never a good idea. A further check on that power is, in my eyes, always welcome. And no matter the power base: Whether it be the church, unions, the media, corporations, or the government, people need a safe way to expose abuses of that power. Wikileaks is one such medium.

If you're gonna be mad about what was released, hate on Manning. He's the one who stole the information. He's the one that was trusted with it and betrayed that trust. Whether his actions were justified is where opinion will surely differ. But don't kill the messenger. Appreciate freedom of the press- it's one of our fundamental rights.


Amen brother.

[prance1520]

This post by Rady sums it all up. Don’t kill the messenger.


His post is really good, and I'd have a hard time arguing against it. I will say this.

Just because you can journalistically release information doesn't mean you should. I realize in journalism school, they will preach this until they bleed, but this is where the media tends to disconnect from the public.

It is why they don't show video of dying soldiers during times of war or why they don't disclose military locations when broadcasting from abroad military bases. They don't disclose murder victim's names over media until the families are notified directly. Just because they might have that info, they don't NEED to disclose it. Most people are very turned off if they do.

That said, your right. Manning is the traitor. Wikileaks is the sleezy reporter, like the Enquirer.

[Back]

His post is really good, and I'd have a hard time arguing against it. I will say this.

Just because you can journalistically release information doesn't mean you should. I realize in journalism school, they will preach this until they bleed, but this is where the media tends to disconnect from the public.

It is why they don't show video of dying soldiers during times of war or why they don't disclose military locations when broadcasting from abroad military bases. They don't disclose murder victim's names over media until the families are notified directly. Just because they might have that info, they don't NEED to disclose it. Most people are very turned off if they do.

That said, your right. Manning is the traitor. Wikileaks is the sleezy reporter, like the Enquirer.

Controlling the media is what Orwell warned us about. And what North Korea and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics still do.

[prance1520]

Government controlling the media is a problem, the media controlling itself isn't.

But I'll be done, I don't want to derail this nice man's thread.

[4a6c1]

I think everyone is forgetting the primary issue here and that is when you read, download, or have anything to do with Wikileaks or anything else that is supposed to be "classified" without a classified clearance you are not functioning within the law. Even though the information on Wikileaks was released "journalistically" the government, OUR government, has not yet declassified it. Everyone should take that into account when they read it at work or any other public computer.

[Alfster]

boner.

[TheEschaton]

The rape is made up, you're definition of treason is vague and specious, and doesn't apply to foreign citizens like Assange. Furthermore, our "classified" information is a joke. I attach for your perusal an article by Richard Posner, a conservative jurist who I usually disagree with, about our overclassification of shit and our egocentricity as a country. Lastly, I concur that there has been no proof that this puts our national security at any greater risk, and I'd say the release of the information has as many benefits as it does drawbacks, if not more.

Wikileaks and the Art of Shutting Up. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79599/wikileaks-art-shutting-up-diplomacy-privacy-gossip)

The public disclosure of some quarter million State Department cables (e-mails with multiple recipients, in essence) raise ethical and legal issues that I won’t discuss. Nor will I try to estimate the net harms (or maybe benefits) of making the cables public. I will address other questions: I’ll call them communication discipline, a culture of self-display, the technology of snooping, media desperation for content, and the social costs of overclassification. They are all closely related. (Click here to read all of TNR's obsessive coverage of the juicy State Department cables.)

It is remarkable how often businessmen, public officials, celebrities, and, for that matter, nobodies, get themselves into trouble by indiscreet e-mailing. They can’t control themselves. It is partly because e-mail feels private—you’re all alone with your laptop or your handheld device. But it’s also because modern people in rich countries cannot shut up. They are constantly communicating, usually banally, because in America everyone is a king and thinks that any thought that occurs to him or her is worthy of being communicated, preferably to many people. They blog, they tweet, they post random thoughts on their Facebook wall—and, if they’re diplomats, they send undiplomatic cables to their colleagues and superiors. (Click here to view a slideshow of the silliest, scariest, and most NSFW Wikileaks.)

All of us should know that anything communicated over the Internet, or any other electronic network, however “secure” the network is believed to be, can be hacked, and, if the senders are public officials, celebrities, etc., it will be, sooner or later. Maybe a lot of people still don’t know how vulnerable the Internet, the telephone (including cell phone) network, etc., are. But if they are public officials, they have the additional, erroneous assurance of “classification,” which could in principle open the hackers to heavy criminal penalties and should therefore deter them. No doubt it deters many of them. But the ranks of the hackers, the disaffected, the spies, are very dense. Meanwhile, the media, desperate for content, cannot resist publishing juicy secrets, whether they are the secrets of individuals or governments; and the U.S. government is reluctant to alienate the media by bringing criminal or civil actions against them.



Our process of classification is undisciplined, because the incentives of public employees in sensitive positions are distorted from an overall social standpoint. Information in government is power, and public employees, like other employees, like to cover up their mistakes. They are in a better position to do so, they think, because they can classify documents—which are then rarely declassified until long after they have ceased to hold any interest for anyone—so they overclassify.

As we’ve seen with Wikileaks, a danger of this rampant classification is that it invites bizarre schemes by limiting the number of people who know about them. The most amusing State Department cables so far reported by the media, besides those describing the Dagestan wedding, are the ones about offers to pay little countries in cash or in kind to take in prisoners from the Guantánamo Bay prison so that we can close it. It seems a ridiculous project, though maybe not, at least insofar as the focus is on prisoners who have been ordered released from the prison but cannot be returned to their country of origin because of concerns that they will be tortured there. It is the payments that give the project a comical air, and the attempt, suggestive of desperation, to export some of the prisoners to a tiny Pacific island nation that no one has heard of (Kiribati, population about 100,000). (One is put in mind of the Bounty mutineers on Pitcairn Island.)

But a bigger problem than our undisciplined classification system may be our undisciplined diplomats, which returns me to the issue of our culture of self-display. Most of the cables that have been publicized were not classified; they were just intended to be private—in the same sense in which a person who disparages one of his friends to another would like and even expect the disparagement to be kept private from the person disparaged. Often this fails and there is embarrassment all around. Likewise, an official of one nation trashes an official of another and this is reported with glee by a U.S. foreign service officer to his superiors, and the report is now public, thanks to Wikileaks.

One would think that the antidote would be a measure of discretion on the part of our diplomats. Diplomats are supposed to be diplomatic, not to be gossips. If it’s really important for a diplomat to pass on a piece of nasty gossip to his superiors, he ought to do it in person—and, at the very least, dissociate himself from the content of the gossip, rather than endorse it.



A striking parallel to Wikileaks is Bob Woodward’s recent (and very interesting) book Obama’s Wars. Almost everyone involved in our Afghanistan war planning seems to have spoken freely to Woodward. Much of what they said either was classified or should have been kept private, for much of it is personal backbiting. Moreover, some of the contents of the book might actually be thought to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Yet the book is popular, Woodward has not been seriously criticized, and its publication is not regarded as scandalous, though the idea of publicizing current U.S. war planning would have struck an earlier generation as treasonous. It’s as if people have simply given up on trying to keep secrets secret.

The recent Wikileaks are more embarrassing mainly because foreigners are involved and because diplomats are expected to be respectful in their treatment of foreign dignitaries. The leaks are also informative, because, if the authors of the cables expected them to remain secret (or private) until the information in them had become thoroughly stale, then what they said was what they actually believed. So we learn something of what our diplomats (and some of our foreign friends and enemies) really think, and that’s eye-opening—but quite possibly inimical to U.S. interests.

All foreign governments have intelligence agencies, and so, for all I know, they were well-aware of the views of their officials expressed by American diplomats in private (the diplomats thought). But there is a difference between knowing that someone thinks ill of you and learning that the whole world has been made privy to that knowledge. Even (or perhaps especially) world leaders have thin skins.

[kookiegod]

I think everyone is forgetting the primary issue here and that is when you read, download, or have anything to do with Wikileaks or anything else that is supposed to be "classified" without a classified clearance you are not functioning within the law. Even though the information on Wikileaks was released "journalistically" the government, OUR government, has not yet declassified it. Everyone should take that into account when they read it at work or any other public computer.

Correct. Government agencies and the US Library of Congress has not only disabled access, but warned employees that they can be fired for mishandling classified information by accessing it.

Yah know, I'm not disagreeing with Rad or Ruty here, I am all for freedom of the press, and as a former member of the Army, I'd still pick up a rifle to defend our way of life and freedoms, freedom isn't free, but as pointed out, there is also a HOW to do this.

Whistleblowers need to be protected, and yes, at ONE time, unions were very important (another subject entirely) and yes, the citizen needs to have checks and balances on the government, but what Julian Assange did (he and wikileaks are one and the same, its his project). According to Wired magazine, a volunteer said that Assange described himself in a private conversation as "the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest"

The quote of its the National Enquirer is about as accurate as anything. Its sleezeball journalism. I find the HOW of what they do dangerous, and Julian Assange is is just a lowlife.

[kookiegod]

The rape is made up, you're definition of treason is vague and specious, and doesn't apply to foreign citizens like Assange. Furthermore, our "classified" information is a joke. I attach for your perusal an article by Richard Posner, a conservative jurist who I usually disagree with, about our overclassification of shit and our egocentricity as a country. Lastly, I concur that there has been no proof that this puts our national security at any greater risk, and I'd say the release of the information has as many benefits as it does drawbacks, if not more.

Wikileaks and the Art of Shutting Up. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79599/wikileaks-art-shutting-up-diplomacy-privacy-gossip)

Interesting article. I agree that Americans' use communication too much without thinking of the long term ramifications and tweet before they think.

I'll disagree on the risk and that this does any good. Finally, the rape is made up? Well, that I will leave to a Swedish court of law to determine the validity of the charges preferred against Mr. Assange that he should answer by surrendering to the proper authorities as a legal warrant is out for him.

~Paul

PS - this has been an excellent , well thought out debate :)

[Stanley Burrell]

Personally, seeing how much non-stop politicking and press this WikiLeaks thingy is getting, the only thing to do is just send in some covert operative with a bunch of fabricated documents regarding ... religion, alien races and the size of people's johnsons. Then we nuke China and no one will know until after Patton annexes Moscow.

[hexxon]

Aside from the huge loss of face, one of the biggest reason the US want this thing stopped is the potential loss of moral among the US troops abroad.

_the_ most important function of basic training is the re-socialization of the soldier. Soldier must not question its government's intentions, its chain of command. A soldier must believe that what they do is righteous. This is how you turn a young kid into a killer - an accepted practice world wide.

Some of the soldiers will learn some of the more real reasons (indeed there are many layers of "truths") they are fighting/killing people - unable to resist their curiosity. Soldiers are better off not knowing, as they might put their lives, and/or faith, in jeopardy. This will drop the effective fighting strength of the US armed forces, by an unknown amount.

[Parkbandit]

The rape is made up, you're definition of treason is vague and specious, and doesn't apply to foreign citizens like Assange. Furthermore, our "classified" information is a joke. I attach for your perusal an article by Richard Posner, a conservative jurist who I usually disagree with, about our overclassification of shit and our egocentricity as a country. Lastly, I concur that there has been no proof that this puts our national security at any greater risk, and I'd say the release of the information has as many benefits as it does drawbacks, if not more.

Wikileaks and the Art of Shutting Up. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79599/wikileaks-art-shutting-up-diplomacy-privacy-gossip)

How would you know that the rape is made up? Because you believe so? Or are you privy to the evidence against him?

[Stanley Burrell]

Aside from the huge loss of face, one of the biggest reason the US want this thing stopped is the potential loss of moral among the US troops abroad.

How are these diplomatic cables capable of reducing our troops' moral (morale?) abroad?


_the_ most important function of basic training is the re-socialization of the soldier. Soldier must not question its government's intentions, its chain of command. A soldier must believe that what they do is righteous. This is how you turn a young kid into a killer - an accepted practice world wide.

We turn a kid into a killer by turning a kid into a killer. A trained soldier has to think, whether or not that encompasses questioning their righteousness is irrelevant, so long as they follow orders. And I still don't see how WikiLeaks puts a dent in that.


Some of the soldiers will learn some of the more real reasons (indeed there are many layers of "truths") they are fighting/killing people - unable to resist their curiosity. Soldiers are better off not knowing, as they might put their lives, and/or faith, in jeopardy. This will drop the effective fighting strength of the US armed forces, by an unknown amount.

Grunts should probably be brain-dead when operating. But let's take, say, Vietnam -- You don't need Wikileaks to intrigue the human brain of almost any soldier into questioning their purpose. WikiLeaks is probably severely moot in this manner.

[hexxon]

How are these diplomatic cables capable of reducing our troops' moral (morale?) abroad?

Some of the soldiers will be reading the cables. It will reduce morale.


We turn a kid into a killer by turning a kid into a killer. A trained soldier has to think, whether or not that encompasses questioning their righteousness is irrelevant, so long as they follow orders. And I still don't see how WikiLeaks puts a dent in that.

An average soldier doesn't need to think, just trained correct reaction, pattern recognition if you will - much like a good boxer. When the sarge says, "grenade that house now", they don't say wait sarge maybe there's a kid inside. That could get the whole platoon killed. Righteousness improves morale: when you think you are right, and the enemy is wrong. This is done through propaganda. ALL armies do this.


Grunts should probably be brain-dead when operating(your words to prove my points above). But let's take, say, Vietnam -- You don't need Wikileaks to intrigue the human brain of almost any soldier into questioning their purpose. WikiLeaks is probably severely moot in this manner.

A soldier knows he's there to kill the people on the other side. That's his purpose. However, the soldier might start to question the purpose of their government. Do you think a soldier is as willing to sacrifice their lives for their country when they are there (for sake of argument), so that you might get 15 cents cheaper per gallon on oil? So corporation X might sell 350 billion dollars of hardware to the Navy, which in turn gives 1 billion or so back to political party Y?

I'm not saying Wikileaks have done no wrong. I'm just pointing out another reason the US might NOT want Wikileaks to continue operations. Don't have to get so defensive about it.

[Warriorbird]

Well, that I will leave to a Swedish court of law to determine the validity of the charges preferred against Mr. Assange that he should answer by surrendering to the proper authorities as a legal warrant is out for him.


The especially odd bit there is that charges were dropped and then he was recharged when somebody who could make a political gain out of the trial came into the matter.

[Stanley Burrell]

Some of the soldiers will be reading the cables. It will reduce morale.



An average soldier doesn't need to think, just trained correct reaction, pattern recognition if you will - much like a good boxer. When the sarge says, "grenade that house now", they don't say wait sarge maybe there's a kid inside. That could get the whole platoon killed. Righteousness improves morale: when you think you are right, and the enemy is wrong. This is done through propaganda. ALL armies do this.



A soldier knows he's there to kill the people on the other side. That's his purpose. However, the soldier might start to question the purpose of their government. Do you think a soldier is as willing to sacrifice their lives for their country when they are there (for sake of argument), so that you might get 15 cents cheaper per gallon on oil? So corporation X might sell 350 billion dollars of hardware to the Navy, which in turn gives 1 billion or so back to political party Y?

I'm not saying Wikileaks have done no wrong. I'm just pointing out another reason the US might NOT want Wikileaks to continue operations. Don't have to get so defensive about it.

I don't think the full documentation WikiLeaks circling itself in the minds of our soldiers is going to have any hampering effect (besides obsessing) more than it would anything else that (I feel) is equally mundane. Yeah, over-thinking would be a problem and constant tangential thoughts on the battlefield would be an issue. I think there are several, several, several other constantly noticeable things in this world that would invade the mind of an obsessive soldier. I guess maybe you could infer that WikiLeaks; stuck inside the brain of an OCD'ing soldier could, on some sort of gray scale, not be as detrimental as their constant intrusive thoughts about ... lemurs. On the battlefield and throughout a tour, if you're going to have a soldier obsessing about something, it'll probably be combat/death-related. WikiLeaks as any sort of feasible deterrent just doesn't seem probable on any measurable basis.

[kookiegod]

The especially odd bit there is that charges were dropped and then he was recharged when somebody who could make a political gain out of the trial came into the matter.

Its just not one prosecutor...to wit:


The matter concerning Mr. Assange

The Matter concerning Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.

The Swedish Supreme Court will not give Mr. Assange leave to appeal, so apparently, they don't feel like overruling the Svea Court of of Appeal which granted the arrest order.

I'm sure like in all headline cases, that the prosecutor is looking for 15 minutes of fame and political gain, but several articles seem to allude to there is more than we know, and not just the sex without a rubber. Again, Mr. Assage should answer these charges unless he believes he is above the law.

If they are fabricated or a joke, than the Swedish courts will look like a complete joke. He's entitled to due process and this is what he should take advantage of.

[Warriorbird]

Its just not one prosecutor...to wit:


The matter concerning Mr. Assange

The Matter concerning Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.

The Swedish Supreme Court will not give Mr. Assange leave to appeal, so apparently, they don't feel like overruling the Svea Court of of Appeal which granted the arrest order.

I'm sure like in all headline cases, that the prosecutor is looking for 15 minutes of fame and political gain, but several articles seem to allude to there is more than we know, and not just the sex without a rubber. Again, Mr. Assage should answer these charges unless he believes he is above the law.

If they are fabricated or a joke, than the Swedish courts will look like a complete joke. He's entitled to due process and this is what he should take advantage of.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/swedens-reputation-is-on-trial-in-julian-assange-case/story-e6frfhqf-1225965772832

[Das Uberdog]

Wikileaks pwns.

Assange publishing classified information is no different than a newspaper publishing a leak. It is not illegal.

[TheEschaton]

The charges were two counts of "sex by surprise," which is basically having unprotected sex. There's been no indication that the sex was unconsented to, which is what rape is.

[Androidpk]

Looking forward to what wikileaks is going to put out about the banks.

[hexxon]

Really???

So, lets say this: Hypothetically.

Lets say there was a war, started because one evil empire has amassed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Later, the soldiers found out that oops, there was no weapons of mass destruction, totally made up. Did we start an illegal war? Did my platoon brothers died for oil prices?? That doesn't have any impact to morale, any more than other "mundane thoughts", like "man! my leg is really itchy from this dry heat!"



I don't think the full documentation WikiLeaks circling itself in the minds of our soldiers is going to have any hampering effect (besides obsessing) more than it would anything else that (I feel) is equally mundane. Yeah, over-thinking would be a problem and constant tangential thoughts on the battlefield would be an issue. I think there are several, several, several other constantly noticeable things in this world that would invade the mind of an obsessive soldier. I guess maybe you could infer that WikiLeaks; stuck inside the brain of an OCD'ing soldier could, on some sort of gray scale, not be as detrimental as their constant intrusive thoughts about ... lemurs. On the battlefield and throughout a tour, if you're going to have a soldier obsessing about something, it'll probably be combat/death-related. WikiLeaks as any sort of feasible deterrent just doesn't seem probable on any measurable basis.

[Androidpk]

Really???

So, lets say this: Hypothetically.

Lets say there was a war, started because one evil empire has amassed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Later, the soldiers found out that oops, there was no weapons of mass destruction, totally made up. Did we start an illegal war? Did my platoon brothers died for oil prices?? That doesn't have any impact to morale, any more than other "mundane thoughts", like "man! my leg is really itchy from this dry heat!"

I don't think you need something like wikileaks to figure this one out.

[kookiegod]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/swedens-reputation-is-on-trial-in-julian-assange-case/story-e6frfhqf-1225965772832

James D. Catlin is a Melbourne barrister who acted for Assange in London earlier this year.

The writer kinda invalidates his points here. Granted it is an opinion piece and I had seen this previously but I can't give him a lot of creedence given his standing.

~Paul

[Warriorbird]

James D. Catlin is a Melbourne barrister who acted for Assange in London earlier this year.

The writer kinda invalidates his points here. Granted it is an opinion piece and I had seen this previously but I can't give him a lot of creedence given his standing.

~Paul

Ideally you have to compare it against what the prosecution put out. They're all lawyers.

[kookiegod]

Ideally you have to compare it against what the prosecution put out. They're all lawyers.

Yep, I'm reading everything and weighing it all in my mind.

Its usually bad these days, something called, listen to all sides and then make your own opinion based on it all. Too many people don't do that.

[Stanley Burrell]

Really???

So, lets say this: Hypothetically.

Lets say there was a war, started because one evil empire has amassed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Later, the soldiers found out that oops, there was no weapons of mass destruction, totally made up. Did we start an illegal war? Did my platoon brothers died for oil prices?? That doesn't have any impact to morale, any more than other "mundane thoughts", like "man! my leg is really itchy from this dry heat!"

Okay. If there was a real whistle-blower directly associated with our troops, say ... WikiLeaks (do you capitalize the L?) published an article about secret experiments where soldiers' barracks were secretly being tainted with superhallucinogens to see if it could make them better fighters, then, yeah. I think it has to hit closer to our soldiers themselves, vs. some of the most hypothetically evil grand schemes you can concoct in order to affect troop morale.

I would say if WikiLeaks or anyone discovered we were using BZ on a massive scale, on our own numbers, or our M.O. from the highest order was purely genocide, then fuck yeah, I would want someone to blow the whistle on that.

You gave an example of an Iraq war possibility, already somewhat substantiated in the minds of individuals. That is the past. Right now, in the present, WikiLeaks is attention whoring regarding the disclosure of diplomatic cables. In the future, if WikiLeaks published something that could have a possible impact on troop morale, then I would always be against the publication of such information UNLESS it is something so sinister and so evil, that whistle-blowing would be the Teleologically preferable alternative.

And where I probably agree with you, somewhere, is that 9 times out of 10, if unsolicited publications had the 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000 chance of affecting our troops' morale, that there should be some legally-binding disclosure agreement, like what we already have installed, that would allow for information to be disseminated in an orderly fashion.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/columbia-students-wikileaks-cables

...and Columbia's telling students not to read the site or talk about it on Facebook. Ways to make things more popular for $200...

[kookiegod]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/columbia-students-wikileaks-cables

...and Columbia's telling students not to read the site or talk about it on Facebook. Ways to make things more popular for $200...

Yep, thats stupid at best, I agree.

[Back]

Been following the whole thing and reading multiple points of view and the conclusion that I come to is this.

9/11 is such a mind fuck its got us all pointing fingers and chasing the boogey man. The real enemy is ourselves.

Its like that Twilight Zone episode where a suburban neighborhood block is cut off from the rest of the world and eventually they turn on each other... suburban neighbors.

I feel that Assange has done this world a great service by creating a way for people to blow whistles on people in power involved in corruption. Wikileaks is known for raising the curtain on numerous corrupt activities. This world needs a Wikileaks. Wikileaks, and Assange, are not the inventors of, the sole outlet of, nor the inspiration for whistleblowing on corruption. They are merely a vehicle for whistleblowing thats not even safe as we are learning.

Assange, his lawyers, his employees and his family are all at risk by the very people in power that Wikileaks exposes. GOP members are calling for his execution. Doesn't that tell you something is not right in Camelot?

The American response to this is embarrassing and alarming. Our country is polarized by the very people we have put in power. We’ve done this to ourselves. And its global, not just America. Its the brazen face of truth about human existence on this planet. It should be an eye opener rather than an eye closer.

Without truth and honesty where are we going to end up?

[Warriorbird]

Been following the whole thing and reading multiple points of view and the conclusion that I come to is this.

9/11 is such a mind fuck its got us all pointing fingers and chasing the boogey man. The real enemy is ourselves.

Its like that Twilight Zone episode where a suburban neighborhood block is cut off from the rest of the world and eventually they turn on each other... suburban neighbors.

I feel that Assange has done this world a great service by creating a way for people to blow whistles on people in power involved in corruption. Wikileaks is known for raising the curtain on numerous corrupt activities. This world needs a Wikileaks. Wikileaks, and Assange, are not the inventors of, the sole outlet of, nor the inspiration for whistleblowing on corruption. They are merely a vehicle for whistleblowing thats not even safe as we are learning.

Assange, his lawyers, his employees and his family are all at risk by the very people in power that Wikileaks exposes. GOP members are calling for his execution. Doesn't that tell you something is not right in Camelot?

The American response to this is embarrassing and alarming. Our country is polarized by the very people we have put in power. We’ve done this to ourselves. And its global, not just America. Its the brazen face of truth about human existence on this planet. It should be an eye opener rather than an eye closer.

Without truth and honesty where are we going to end up?

Clearly we're going to end up with platitudes and generalizations.

[4a6c1]

Did somebody say Platipussy?

The solution is very obviously Venom/Eggs/Lactation.

[Back]

Clearly we're going to end up with platitudes and generalizations.

Sometimes people just need to verbalize the tacit.

[Warriorbird]

A detailed response RE: The critics of Wikileaks.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/wikileaks/index.html

[Stanley Burrell]

lulz. Angry red rep: shut up retard. Srsly, stop posting.

The only thing retarded I was doing was troll-baiting, unless this motherfucker is actually serious about the Kazahk president's homeoerotic habits hurting our troops, which would also be retarded to make any sort of attempt to form a contrary opinion that would seem feasible to someone of that mindset.



Edit: So ... it is pretty retarded actually, my bad.

[4a6c1]

:(

[Androidpk]

My spoon is too big.

[Rathain]

A detailed response RE: The critics of Wikileaks.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/wikileaks/index.html

I'm curious as to where their moral compass points with this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.
Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation.

The definition of US national security revealed by the cable is broad and all embracing...

More in the article.

[Warriorbird]

I'd suspect that in many ways it'd actually lead to further protection for those areas. The ones not on the list are where I'd be worried about attack. Consider information implications beyond just what you're given.

The Wikileaks that I've personally been bothered by (non redacted informant names and such) have occurred in the past. I think that Assange should be selective, but I don't think he's Osama Bin Laden 2 like he's been made out to be. This is also a testimonial to the danger of shared information and the Wiki concept in general, amusingly enough.

[Parkbandit]

I'd suspect that in many ways it'd actually lead to further protection for those areas. The ones not on the list are where I'd be worried about attack. Consider information implications beyond just what you're given.

The Wikileaks that I've personally been bothered by (non redacted informant names and such) have occurred in the past. I think that Assange should be selective, but I don't think he's Osama Bin Laden 2 like he's been made out to be. This is also a testimonial to the danger of shared information and the Wiki concept in general, amusingly enough.

I don't think he's Osama Bin Laden 2 either.. but I do believe what he is doing is wrong.

I heard on the news today that he has some "poison pill" bomb that he will release on the Internet if he is arrested or his website is shut down, which contains documents they haven't even gone through yet.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think he's Osama Bin Laden 2 either.. but I do believe what he is doing is wrong.

I heard on the news today that he has some "poison pill" bomb that he will release on the Internet if he is arrested or his website is shut down, which contains documents they haven't even gone through yet.

It's theoretically an encoded copy of the remainder...if they take the website out.

[Back]

If somehow the web site gets taken down or is tied up with DOS attack there are already a bunch of people mirroring it. Now that the information is out there it can't be taken back.

[sst]

Aside from the huge loss of face, one of the biggest reason the US want this thing stopped is the potential loss of moral among the US troops abroad.

_the_ most important function of basic training is the re-socialization of the soldier. Soldier must not question its government's intentions, its chain of command. A soldier must believe that what they do is righteous. This is how you turn a young kid into a killer - an accepted practice world wide.

Some of the soldiers will learn some of the more real reasons (indeed there are many layers of "truths") they are fighting/killing people - unable to resist their curiosity. Soldiers are better off not knowing, as they might put their lives, and/or faith, in jeopardy. This will drop the effective fighting strength of the US armed forces, by an unknown amount.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you were never in the military.

I doubt this will have any affect on the "moral" of the military.

Now i whole heartedly disagree with what Wikileaks did in the past and is doing now, but in the end... The cables released so far make the U.S. look good (for the most part).

[hexxon]

No, I was never in the military.

But this guy was.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/7/iraq_war_veteran_who_rescued_wounded

and so was this guy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/12/this_is_how_these_soldiers_were

and so are these bunch of vets.

http://www.ivaw.org/ Iraq Veterans Against the War.

And many, many more affected, staying quiet. Not about to raise a stink because they have family that perhaps needs that paycheck. And they love their country. But just because YOU don't hear about it, doesn't mean they don't exist. It's just that you have chosen to ignore them and act like they don't matter.

These types of things NOT effecting army morale would be.. a scary thing. I'm sure there are whispers in the army about these things, but to hear about it and to actually SEE it with your own eyes is very different. If the morale doesn't lower, it would mean that the soldiers have all became inhumane. Which I doubt, from the reaction of these vets.

The leaks make US look good, for the most part?? What bad does it have to get before you consider bad? Has the standard for integrity become so low that this is consider "look good - for the most part"?

[Stanley Burrell]

The trickle-down effect of the most recently published WikiLeaks articles regarding diplomatic cables may affect one of our solider's toenails.

[Rallorick]

no seriously... this thread needs to shut the fuck up.

[Warriorbird]

Tell us exactly what authority you have to tell all sides of an issue to shut up.

[Abilene]

Hey... I thought this thread was about paypal!

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Please-Don-t-Feed-the-Troll-atsof-573296_300_336.jpg

[Reltov420]

Tell us exactly what authority you have to tell all sides of an issue to shut up.

ITS AN AUCTION FOLDER IDIOT

[Alfster]

because clearly, everyone here follows what fucking folder something is in.

[Stanley Burrell]

ITS AN AUCTION FOLDER IDIOT

No. Fucking. Way.

Yeah, if she who won't be mentioned was still an Admin then it would've probably been moved with Nazi-like precision, but the whole point is that someone with 60'ish posts either mistakenly or purposefully posted it up in the Auctions folder -- and folks decided to give their input. You'd have to have this happen like four or five times in a row, deliberately, by either the same poster or with the same sort of context to realistically, by the majority of the PC's response standard, decide when-to-ignore it entirely. C'mon.

[Stanley Burrell]

...Although; I digress, because it would be sort of hilarious if someone decided to post viral stuff in folders that didn't suit the context of their posts and then keep on going, "I GOTCHA" with ridiculous amounts of smugness like they had won World War III.

[Warriorbird]

...Although; I digress, because it would be sort of hilarious if someone decided to post viral stuff in folders that didn't suit the context of their posts and then keep on going, "I GOTCHA" with ridiculous amounts of smugness like they had won World War III.

Nobody's even on that level. But two relative unknowns have used this folder to suddenly achieve mod status. ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwzH1gFamJk

(alternately, somebody could arrange to get the thread moved....Paypal idiots is clearly disrupting commerce)

[Warriorbird]

http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/12/07/what-wikileaks-tells-you-about-chinas-economic-numbers/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5KeXMz3l-4

[Gelston]

No, I was never in the military.

But this guy was.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/7/iraq_war_veteran_who_rescued_wounded

and so was this guy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/12/this_is_how_these_soldiers_were

and so are these bunch of vets.

http://www.ivaw.org/ Iraq Veterans Against the War.

And many, many more affected, staying quiet. Not about to raise a stink because they have family that perhaps needs that paycheck. And they love their country. But just because YOU don't hear about it, doesn't mean they don't exist. It's just that you have chosen to ignore them and act like they don't matter.

These types of things NOT effecting army morale would be.. a scary thing. I'm sure there are whispers in the army about these things, but to hear about it and to actually SEE it with your own eyes is very different. If the morale doesn't lower, it would mean that the soldiers have all became inhumane. Which I doubt, from the reaction of these vets.

The leaks make US look good, for the most part?? What bad does it have to get before you consider bad? Has the standard for integrity become so low that this is consider "look good - for the most part"?

I'm currently active duty Marines. It didn't lower my morale, or anyone else I know. Do I disagree with it? Yes.

[kookiegod]

So Assange was cuffed and stuffed, bail denied in Great Britain.

Next up? Extradition hearings.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm currently active duty Marines. It didn't lower my morale, or anyone else I know. Do I disagree with it? Yes. Yeah as a former Marine I'm agreeing with Gelston, it wouldn't slow my roll at all.

[Parkbandit]

So Assange was cuffed and stuffed, bail denied in Great Britain.

Next up? Extradition hearings.

Glenn Beck comes out in defense of Julian Assange. On yesterday’s installment of the Glenn Beck show on FNC, Beck came out in defense of Wikileaks chief Assange, but conditionally. He explored the alleged rape charges against Assange in detail (really "sex by surprise" charges), and he reached the conclusion that they are fishy at best and even may be a conspiracy against Assange. While Beck defended Assange based on the likelihood that the rape allegations against him are totally bogus—he even provided a specific timeline breakdown of the alleged Assange rapes—he still asserted that Assange is a menace. Beck also predicted that Assange’s leaking activities would get the ball rolling towards "bringing down the system," a leftist tactic he’s been continually warning people of for years.

Based on the Beck breakdown of the so-called crimes by Wikileaks founder Assange, it surely looks like the apparent charges of rape and so-called "sex by surprise" are only an excuse to impede Assange from being able to leak any further. If that’s truly the tactic the overseas governments are using, it begs the question, Why? After all, Assange, for his mischief of leaking US government secrets, could be simply classified an enemy combatant and treated just like those little Islamonazis in Gitmo.

Going after Assange on the alleged rape or "sex by surprise" charge is really weak. According to Beck’s breakdown, Assange’s trouble began when he met a woman at a seminar put on by a fanatically left-wing group in Sweden; this group actually had ties to the Students for a Democratic Society, a left-wing group that Beck’s been railing against forever. This woman would become the first woman to questionably accuse Assange of raping her. Interestingly, she also authored some writing that detailed how to get "legal revenge" on "unfaithful lovers." Sure sounds like this woman is doing that now against Assange. It’s cute, though, how she’s a left-winger and Assange is also a left-winger…and she can’t put aside her feelings of being "rejected" by Assange for their common cause of liberal lunacy. How moving.

This same woman then allowed him to stay at her apartment. Long story short, they ended up having sex (As all left-wing radicals do when they get the urge. Awww…how sweet.). The trouble with this woman’s rape accusation is that it came after she threw Assange a party after their sexual encounter. It goes without saying that rape victims hardly throw parties for men who raped them.

Now, Assange was staying at the woman’s apartment because he was in Sweden to give a speech at a seminar. On the day of the actual seminar, he met another woman (because anti-American leakers like Assange are apparently also womanizers) who, just as luck would have it, was infatuated with him (Awwww, left-wing radical puppy love. So cute.). To make a long story short again, Assange ended up having sex with this second woman (She is just stupid and suffers from bad judgment, and he’s a dog.).

All this comes to a climax (no pun intended) when both of these presumably Swedish women (Abba fans, maybe?) get to chatting as all gals do at some point. They discover that their dream guy in Assange is kind of two-timing them. So…since woman apparently dislike being two-timed (even if they did make the wrong decision by being attracted to Assange in the first place), it looks like they decided to get revenge on him by accusing him of rape to the authorities. And that’s what’s so bogus about Assange’s arrest.

Beck next took his analysis too far into conspiracy land (he goes there from time to time) for my liking when he then asserted that Assange was exposing these government secrets to instigate a chaotic, revolution-like reaction from all the lefties…sort of like what Bill Ayers and the violent socialist groups are all about. Never one not to build up his own brand, Beck then questioned why the Left always attacks him for exposing governments, yet they’re on Assange’s side in this fiasco. His conclusion? That the left really wants the chaos sown by the damaging Wikileaks disclosures, so they can start "bringing down the system."

http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/video-glenn-beck-comes-out-defense-of-julian-assange

If the background of the "rape" story is true, man, that is some fucked up shit.

Women: Can't live with them; can't live without them.

If this timeline is true, those two women deserve to get raped JUST so they know what it's like next time they want to claim someone did it.

[kookiegod]

Interesting, thanks for sharing PB.

~Paul

[milesalpha]

I thought Beck lives in conspiracy land? I haven't been exposed to his rants too much (We have his sort in Canada but they are relegated to street corners in Edmonton) but frankly he is more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be.

[Parkbandit]

I thought Beck lives in conspiracy land? I haven't been exposed to his rants too much (We have his sort in Canada but they are relegated to street corners in Edmonton) but frankly he is more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be.

Describe how he is more dangerous than Assange could ever be.

Or are you just using hyperbole and trite expressions to fill in the blanks in a half baked attempt to have a point?

[Warriorbird]

Or are you just using hyperbole and trite expressions to fill in the blanks in a half baked attempt to have a point?

Kind of like most of the PC or Glenn Beck?

[milesalpha]

Ah a true beck type, when you have nothing to say, go on the attack with an ad hom. Better men than I have pointed out how divisive Beck is with his attacks, that he is a one dimensional character with little real political knowledge, that he is a self-admitted entertainer (much like Limbaugh) who has more interest in ratings than in political discourse. He pushes a holy war within America between the churches and the "secular" (this inculdes scientists, thinkers, politicians and many others who simply have a different opinion from Beck). His odd view of the origin of the United States remains unsupported by historians, who generally agree that he is simply trying to grab ratings by appealing to those who feel marginalized in a modern world (and as some have pointed out they are not actually marginalized but simply told they are). He lacks any formal education in history or in politics. I assume I won't have to list the various academics and political commentators who have concluded he is not a positive force for America, they are legion an already well known. Even Fox news personalities have commented that his opinions are too incendiary for Fox News if they wish to try and cling to some sort of journalistic identity.

"Leave your churches if they use the world social justice, it means they are communists"

"I believe we're approaching a last call, all aboard. I had nightmares last night, because I felt maybe I wasn't clear enough. The message I feel I'm supposed to give you is get behind the shield of God"

He has compared himself to Nazi Hunters saying "to the day I die I am going to be a progressive-hunter. I’m going to find these people that have done this to our country and expose them. I don’t care if they’re in nursing homes."

"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

"I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." –on why people who lost their homes in forest fires in California had it coming

And finally a personal favorite, though not a statmement, when he was explaining that he had personally cracked a code proving that Obama was creating an oligarchy and then spelling it oligarhy repeatedly on his blackboard.


In sum he is a failed radio dj who hit on the profitability of hate and it's popularity with the less educated segment of society that feel alienated by a world that is progresing too fast for them.

[Parkbandit]

Ah a true beck type, when you have nothing to say, go on the attack with an ad hom.

Wait... didn't you attack Glenn Beck to begin your "contribution" in this thread?

And pointing out how you used hyperbole and a trite expression isn't an ad hominem attack.



Better men than I

Damn.. thought you were a girl. Maybe you should change your login to something not ending in an "a".


have pointed out how divisive Beck is with his attacks, that he is a one dimensional character with little real political knowledge, that he is a self-admitted entertainer (much like Limbaugh) who has more interest in ratings than in political discourse. He pushes a holy war within America between the churches and the "secular" (this inculdes scientists, thinkers, politicians and many others who simply have a different opinion from Beck).

You aren't proving how Glenn Beck is "more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be." You are giving your opinion about him. Give us something solid.



His odd view of the origin of the United States remains unsupported by historians

I don't follow Beck as much as you clearly do.. but give us some examples of what you are talking about.


who generally agree that he is simply trying to grab ratings by appealing to those who feel marginalized in a modern world (and as some have pointed out they are not actually marginalized but simply told they are).

So all historians generally believe Beck is wrong about history? Really?


He lacks any formal education in history or in politics.

OH, so you can't possibly know what you are talking about unless you read books inside a university. Reading those same books at home is just stupid.


I assume I won't have to list the various academics and political commentators who have concluded he is not a positive force for America, they are legion an already well known. Even Fox news personalities have commented that his opinions are too incendiary for Fox News if they wish to try and cling to some sort of journalistic identity.

Really? Source?



"Leave your churches if they use the world social justice, it means they are communists"

Is that a direct quote? This is what Google returned when I searched for it:


No results found for "Leave your churches if they use the world social justice, it means they are communists"


"I believe we're approaching a last call, all aboard. I had nightmares last night, because I felt maybe I wasn't clear enough. The message I feel I'm supposed to give you is get behind the shield of God"

While I am an atheist, I don't necessarily believe this is the smoking gun you are looking for to make the case that Glenn Beck is "more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be."



He has compared himself to Nazi Hunters saying "to the day I die I am going to be a progressive-hunter. I’m going to find these people that have done this to our country and expose them. I don’t care if they’re in nursing homes."

OH NOEZ!!! That does sound dangerous! He's exposing people!!!



"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Again.. does this make him "more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be."? I don't see it.



"I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." –on why people who lost their homes in forest fires in California had it coming

Does that mean Glenn Beck has God on his side?



And finally a personal favorite, though not a statmement, when he was explaining that he had personally cracked a code proving that Obama was creating an oligarchy and then spelling it oligarhy repeatedly on his blackboard.

He has strong opinions.. but again, doesn't prove your point. I do hope he knew how to spell it on his blackboard correctly though.........



In sum he is a failed radio dj who hit on the profitability of hate and it's popularity with the less educated segment of society that feel alienated by a world that is progresing too fast for them.

Well.. once a failed radio dj, always a failed radio dj. There is no way he could ever, ever recover from that. Damn! I think that DOES prove your point!

[Cephalopod]

Now, I'm not saying that Glenn Beck murdered a poor innocent young girl in 1990, all I'm saying is that America and the victim's family deserves to know the truth. If you have nothing to hide, Mr. Beck, why not come clean and share the documents that would settle once and for all if you murdered that young girl in 1990?

[Warriorbird]

Now, I'm not saying that Glenn Beck murdered a poor innocent young girl in 1990, all I'm saying is that America and the victim's family deserves to know the truth. If you have nothing to hide, Mr. Beck, why not come clean and share the documents that would settle once and for all if you murdered that young girl in 1990?

This might explain Beck's empathy for Assange.

[TheEschaton]

I like how when I posted the same timeline in a different article earlier, Paul, you disregarded it, but when Glenn Beck examines the same timeline and comes to the same conclusion, you're all like "nice contribution, PB!"

Good job at being objective.

[peam]

Now, I'm not saying that Glenn Beck murdered a poor innocent young girl in 1990, all I'm saying is that America and the victim's family deserves to know the truth. If you have nothing to hide, Mr. Beck, why not come clean and share the documents that would settle once and for all if you murdered that young girl in 1990?

It's an hour and a half later and Glenn Beck has still not denied RAPING AND KILLING A GIRL IN 1990.

[Androidpk]

I heard that Assange's "poison pill" includes documents pertaining to the supposed murder of this young girl in 1990 at the hands of Mr. Beck.

[Parkbandit]

I like how when I posted the same timeline in a different article earlier, Paul, you disregarded it, but when Glenn Beck examines the same timeline and comes to the same conclusion, you're all like "nice contribution, PB!"

Good job at being objective.

Sounds like someone is demanding social justice!

We should organize.

[kookiegod]

I like how when I posted the same timeline in a different article earlier, Paul, you disregarded it, but when Glenn Beck examines the same timeline and comes to the same conclusion, you're all like "nice contribution, PB!"

Good job at being objective.

I read it then, and read it again.

I was just being nice to PB, we been debating fine before that.

I have no idea if either article is true, and as seen from my list on conservative pundits, I don't think much of Beck in general, its nothing on being objective.

What IS true is Mr. Assange is now is custody and have to answer these charges to the Swedish authorities. If its turns out to be true, then he's in trouble, but if it turns out to be false, a smear job, slander, a poltical vendetta, I will come here, hat in hand, and apologize for doubting you.

Fair enough?

[Warriorbird]

I read it then, and read it again.

I was just being nice to PB, we been debating fine before that.

I have no idea if either article is true, and as seen from my list on conservative pundits, I don't think much of Beck in general, its nothing on being objective.

What IS true is Mr. Assange is now is custody and have to answer these charges to the Swedish authorities. If its turns out to be true, then he's in trouble, but if it turns out to be false, a smear job, slander, a poltical vendetta, I will come here, hat in hand, and apologize for doubting you.

Fair enough?

It's a convenient excuse to get him extradited.

[Parkbandit]

I read it then, and read it again.

I was just being nice to PB, we been debating fine before that.

I have no idea if either article is true, and as seen from my list on conservative pundits, I don't think much of Beck in general, its nothing on being objective.

What IS true is Mr. Assange is now is custody and have to answer these charges to the Swedish authorities. If its turns out to be true, then he's in trouble, but if it turns out to be false, a smear job, slander, a poltical vendetta, I will come here, hat in hand, and apologize for doubting you.

Fair enough?

I bet it's because TheE is a brown terrorist.. isn't it...

[milesalpha]

Wait... didn't you attack Glenn Beck to begin your "contribution" in this thread?
And pointing out how you used hyperbole and a trite expression isn't an ad hominem attack.

The trouble is you have not shown where i have use Hyperbole (exaggeration) or how I was trite (hackneyed or overused). The first sentence was merely a play on a previous comment but provable. The second is a statement of belief no different from what you have done. You were using them as a perjorative, if in the wrong sense.


Damn.. thought you were a girl. Maybe you should change your login to something not ending in an "a".

Uh right, sorry, I cannot help you with your sexuality, quite comfortable with mine.


You aren't proving how Glenn Beck is "more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be." You are giving your opinion about him. Give us something solid.

Well that was more an opening statement to introduce further thoughts, sorry i tend to fall into a formal style here and there. I would note though that there have been no actual danger from Assange at this point, much conjecture is all. But on with Beck.


I don't follow Beck as much as you clearly do.. but give us some examples of what you are talking about.

As I said, I have never actually watched his program. I have read a number of his articles and excerpts from his books. My nature and education force me to check just about everything that is said by someone who wields power, so I have sought out opposing viewpoints. I do the same when I read Franken's books (I read a ton, Kershaw is my god). If I'm really feeling picky I go to the original documents.
As for Beck he holds views on slavery as a positive force for its time, has a pathological hatred of Woodrow Wilson, believes that a secret society engineered the New Deal, he believes there is currently a secret conspiracy to take over the United States, his complete rejection of the dseparation of church and state, the links between Hitler and Obama, and a really wild theory about the fall of Rome (it was progressives' fault!)


So all historians generally believe Beck is wrong about history? Really?

You're right, that's not fair. Holocaust study has David Irving, 9/11 conspiracists have Steven Jones and Intelligent Designers have Michael Behe. Beck has Goldberg and another guy's name I forget right off hand. Although to be accurate Beck doesn't actually source most of his stuff, a constant complaint from historians, and simply drew his ideas on FDR from Goldberg and company. Now I can't say for certain that they support him but since he's pretty much their only advocate of note, I'd be surprised if they didn't. The great test of history (or most academics) is constant peer review, and so far Goldberg theories are drowning. So it would be more fair to say 99% of historians, much like 99% of biologists accept evolutionary theory. Here's an opinion of a history professor from Princeton and a review of Beck's "history" in the Washington Post. One liberal, one conservative, nice balance.
http://choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/06/glenn-beck-historian.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093005267.html?wpisrc=xs_0005&sid=ST2010093005292


OH, so you can't possibly know what you are talking about unless you read books inside a university. Reading those same books at home is just stupid.

Yes it is, if you expect to have the same level of expertise. Beck is wonderful proof of this, though I am unsure he has actually read any real history, he never claims anything like that. When was the last time you had surgery by a guy who took medical school by correspondence? How many Nasa scientists are home schooled? History has been called the most science like of the Arts disciplines, it works on empirical proof. Proof value is graded, primary documents are the top level, reading books ranks well down. At home you have no seminars, no discussion, not even any required reading. You never have to stand up and defend a thought. When I called Ghandhi a politcal liability, I was expected to get up and explain myself, Beck never has to do that. The difference is enormous.


Really? Source?

Getting tired of doing basic research for a guy you defend. I have read anti-Beck editorials from David Frum and Eric Burns. Or for fun, see if you can find his speech to CPAC last year where they actually booed him when he got too crazy.


Is that a direct quote? This is what Google returned when I searched for it

You're right, I clipped it, I had thought it so well known that there was no question. My mistake. No matter a simple Beck Social Justice gives me all I need, here's the top return, even has the audio of his show. The exact statement...
"I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/
The other returned results correctly, here is the top one
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/08/30/ST2010083005655.html


While I am an atheist, I don't necessarily believe this is the smoking gun you are looking for to make the case that Glenn Beck is "more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be."

I have claimed no smoking gun. It is a matter of history that those who push a we/them agenda will either fade away or become a lightning rod for revolution or acts of violence. The situation in America reminds me a lot of Germany in 1848, when a group not unlike the Tea Party managed to take control of the government, they quickly frgamented when they discovered they shared some beliefs but not all beliefs. I hate to tell you that, as an atheist, you are pretty high on the target list. Atheism is rolled up with nazism, communism, socialism and a bunch of other isms that signify progressivism. The religious right in America is easily the most powerful religious body in any western nation, a good example is that only Turkey has a lower acceptance of the theory of evolution.


OH NOEZ!!! That does sound dangerous! He's exposing people!!!

Wow, really missed the boat on this one. First of anyone who uses any term involving nazis is an idiot. Beck uses it almost daily so it elevates him to major idiot in my book. My main area of specialty is German political history 1919-1939 and no discussion of Obama, Bush, Cheney, Reagan or even Beck should involve Nazism. Second do you or he have any clue what the Nazi Hunters actually did? They identified and located known criminals, hunted them down and brought them to trial. Beck is sitting comfortably in his chair, making up an enemy, and claiming he is hunting them till his death. Who? Has he caught any? What was the result of their trial? He is talking about hunting people with a different political viewpoint...period. How do you think some of his more psychologically unstable listeners might react? Idiot Calls for bombing abortion clinics had some success. You know the funniest thing about this claim of his is ..how did the Nazi Hunters establish the guilt of their prey? Why they got hold of secret documents from the various Axis archives. You mean documents similar to the Wikileaks material? Um....



Again.. does this make him "more dangerous to the US than Assange could ever be."? I don't see it.

It is a truism of history that if you divide a people into we/them you inevitably end up with conflict. I have had no evidence that Assange will cause any real danger, embarassment to be sure, but it's no suprise to most that America doesn't have the cleanest of hands in international politics and I haven't seen anything that would expand that view notably.


Does that mean Glenn Beck has God on his side?

Obviously, he thinks he does. What usually happens when someone thinks he has god on his side (and Beck believes God talks to him)? I have the Flying Spaghetti Monster on my side so I have nothing to worry about.


He has strong opinions.. but again, doesn't prove your point. I do hope he knew how to spell it on his blackboard correctly though.........

He has strong unfounded opinions, designed to inflame a part of the population against another part of the population. In other words real Americans (him) versus fake Americans (whoever) He has created a boogeyman and encourages hatred of this boogeyman as he defines it. He has demonstrated that he does not care about the repercussions of what he says (he has repeatedly said he is an entertainer, it's all about the money). In the limited video I have seen him in he cries, raves, wails, and goes into histrionics. He is not interested in discussion or real solutions. But he still spells it incorrectly. On Fox news to boot, I'd have thought they learned from that Malmedy mess.


Well.. once a failed radio dj, always a failed radio dj. There is no way he could ever, ever recover from that. Damn! I think that DOES prove your point!

Uh missed the point again, unless you think preaching hate for money is a step up. Not like he ever did anything to improve himself, tried one University class, dropped out. Drugs, alchohol problems, attempted suicide, failed marriage

In close, a funny little statement from a guy who wrote an article about Beck in the New York Times Magazine.
"Some of his most devoted advertisers include companies that prepare people for a total economic collapse — such as makers of emergency power generators, or "survival seed" providers, which presumably would allow citizens to grow their own food in an emergency."

I wonder why.

[milesalpha]

All that being said, what did we decide about Paypal?

[Warriorbird]

So all historians generally believe Beck is wrong about history? Really?

Pretty much. His theories don't even make conservative historical mainstream.

RE: Paypal, they were probably pressured.

[DaCapn]

All that being said, what did we decide about Paypal?

Just a tip when you make posts like this:
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1208302&postcount=95

Use the button that looks like this:
http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/buttons/quote.gif

[milesalpha]

Just a tip when you make posts like this:
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1208302&postcount=95

Use the button that looks like this:
http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/buttons/quote.gif

I knew, I just thought this way made things hideously long. Didn't think any but PB would be that interested, no even sure he is for that matter. Sorry.

But to continue with the wikileaks, how does it compare to the Pentagon Papers? Similar predictions of lost national security, but had very little impact short term or long term.

[Back]

This is the human revolution being played out yet again before our eyes.

The privileged versus the masses. Corporation versus consumer. Elected versus elector.

[TheEschaton]

I read it then, and read it again.

I was just being nice to PB, we been debating fine before that.

I have no idea if either article is true, and as seen from my list on conservative pundits, I don't think much of Beck in general, its nothing on being objective.

What IS true is Mr. Assange is now is custody and have to answer these charges to the Swedish authorities. If its turns out to be true, then he's in trouble, but if it turns out to be false, a smear job, slander, a poltical vendetta, I will come here, hat in hand, and apologize for doubting you.

Fair enough?

Let's also note that Assange turned HIMSELF in once the British authorities accepted the Interpol warrant as executable. As long as the trial is clear and transparent, I'll be happy with the results, whatever they may be, but I'm pretty sure it's a smear campaign.

[kookiegod]

Let's also note that Assange turned HIMSELF in once the British authorities accepted the Interpol warrant as executable. As long as the trial is clear and transparent, I'll be happy with the results, whatever they may be, but I'm pretty sure it's a smear campaign.

So noted and quite correct.

[crb]

Can I play too?



Julian Assange the wikileaks founder who has been in the news much lately was cut off from his paypal account today. Even if you don't agree with this guys politics, paypal is making a political statement by doing this.

Also he was cut off from his account, which means they can do the same to any of you that have an account. A bank going after somebody for being unethicial is about as hypocritical as you can get.

Don't just take my word for things there are plenty of posts on Wikileaks and plenty of other places including this one.


I'm emailing Paypal ketting them know I'm not happy. If that doesn't work, I might delete my acount. Seriously, it's time to pick sides. If you don't see the good that these and future leaks will do to the global society, specially to the poorest and neediest in the world... If you can't see how having government, corporations, everyone being held accountable for the s*it they say, the things they do... Sorry Paypal, you're not getting any more fees from me. Your service is bad, deals with international markets on a stupid way, takes too long and is a lot more expensive and complicated than Western Union. In other words, you suck. It was not nice dealing with you.

Posted by: Breno | December 4, 2010 12:03 AM


First of all, the US Bill of Rights applies generally to your rights in public or in dealings with the government. Paypal violated no one's freedom of speech. As a nongovernmental entity paypal has every right to run their business as they see fit.

Secondly, you know what? I really don't want a global society. If helping the poorest and the neediest (I won't even go into the money pit of foreign aid to places such as most of Africa) means bringing down my country, which just so happens provides my family with a nice quality of life, I'm against it. Sorry, I'm selfish, I want my genes to have advantages as they race through the future. Blame darwin.

This guy is guilty of espionage. Maybe of sexual assault. He is not a noble journalist but a computer hacker, he has broken the law all his life.

I don't think he should be executed, but life in prison sounds pretty good.

I would also label wikileaks as a terrorist organization. They are a nonstate entity directly in conflict with our military and are trying to derail our military operations. They don't need to have AK-47s to be enemy combatants. What is it about the Internet that people think they can go up against the US Military and think there will be no consequences. Seriously? If the country of Iran did what Wikileaks did it would be an act of war. Do you get that? But because it is some douche eurotrash its okay?

If Obama doesn't drop the hammer on this twat there will only be more of the same. An example needs to be made.

And yes, someone needs to be fired over how the fuck this much information was accessible. If my GS twitter script accesses twitter too much I get throttled and a warning, but supposedly one guy was able to download all of this and no one noticed?

If Holder doesn't draw up an indictment soon there should be calls for his resignation, between this and the Black Panther thing he is the worst attorney general ever.

[milesalpha]

Can I play too?





First of all, the US Bill of Rights applies generally to your rights in public or in dealings with the government. Paypal violated no one's freedom of speech. As a nongovernmental entity paypal has every right to run their business as they see fit.

Secondly, you know what? I really don't want a global society. If helping the poorest and the neediest (I won't even go into the money pit of foreign aid to places such as most of Africa) means bringing down my country, which just so happens provides my family with a nice quality of life, I'm against it. Sorry, I'm selfish, I want my genes to have advantages as they race through the future. Blame darwin.

This guy is guilty of espionage. Maybe of sexual assault. He is not a noble journalist but a computer hacker, he has broken the law all his life.

I don't think he should be executed, but life in prison sounds pretty good.

I would also label wikileaks as a terrorist organization. They are a nonstate entity directly in conflict with our military and are trying to derail our military operations. They don't need to have AK-47s to be enemy combatants. What is it about the Internet that people think they can go up against the US Military and think there will be no consequences. Seriously? If the country of Iran did what Wikileaks did it would be an act of war. Do you get that? But because it is some douche eurotrash its okay?

If Obama doesn't drop the hammer on this twat there will only be more of the same. An example needs to be made.

And yes, someone needs to be fired over how the fuck this much information was accessible. If my GS twitter script accesses twitter too much I get throttled and a warning, but supposedly one guy was able to download all of this and no one noticed?

If Holder doesn't draw up an indictment soon there should be calls for his resignation, between this and the Black Panther thing he is the worst attorney general ever.


A few things for you to consider. Good news for you, you can still donate money to the Ku Klux Klan through Paypal, nothing like a good double standard.

Most Americans don't understand why foreign aid is not dumped by Republicans or Democrats. The reason is you profit by it, not helping these countries would actually lower your standard of living. You should actually look into the requirements the US places on its foreign aid. The aid has nothing to do with you being nice. The Marshall Plan is a very good example.

As legal experts have repeatedly pointed out, he is not guilty of espionage. his is a journalistic entity releasing leaked documents. The documents do not deal solely with the US. The person who leaked the documents may be charged but as the Pentagon Papers demonstrated there would be little chance of a conviction. Despite what Fox news might scream about, and they are hilarious, there is no legal recourse unless you invent new laws.

Most nations have trials before they declare anyone guilty. The sexual assault case seems particularly strange, don't hold your breath.

It's funny people want to execute him but I don't think emabarassing diplomats is a chargeable offence. I would doubt that any nation would extradite him on the basis of such charges. Simply attempting it would make the US look like an idiot.

A terrorist organization...seriously? You ever add up what the CIA has done in other nations? The damage they have done to people, property and governments has been staggering over the years yet one guy releasing documents is a bigger threat? As an example do you have any clue why Iran hates the US so much? Hint: It's not because they are jealous of your freedoms. By your standards the US has committed many acts of war.

Once again I will refer you to the Pentagon Papers, we heard the same chest beating about that event and nothing came of it. Neither the charges against Ellsburg nor any of the supposed negative effects on US security.

Obama can do nothing in this instance and of course there will be more of the same, leaking secret documents has been done for hundreds of years. It is true than the American media is not what it once was, but 30 years ago it would have been leading the way on this. Now that media is more a corporate tool, other people have to take up the slack.

It's funny that almost every party in any country runs on a platform of transparency, but then when they are confronted with it they take the opposite position.

Frankly, give it two months, the hysteria in the US will move on to some other subject and it will be pretty much forgotten. if you check the CNN page, it doesn't rank as much of a story any more, the only reference is to the Kenyan corruption that was exposed. The most stunning thing for me in all of this was 40 years ago the Pentagon Papers showed how government had lied to its people and they were outraged at government. These days the same thing happens and people are outraged that someone bothered telling them.

[DaCapn]

As legal experts have repeatedly pointed out, he is not guilty of espionage. his is a journalistic entity releasing leaked documents. The documents do not deal solely with the US. The person who leaked the documents may be charged but as the Pentagon Papers demonstrated there would be little chance of a conviction. Despite what Fox news might scream about, and they are hilarious, there is no legal recourse unless you invent new laws.

There may be some new legislation. Lieberman and others are behind the SHIELD act which would amend the espionage act to make it illegal to the press to print classified information. You guys weren't using the WHOLE first amendment were you?

Has anyone yet mentioned the fact that Wikileaks would first leak documents to the well established press (NYT, for example), wait for them to release the information with whatever redactions they deemed appropriate, THEN release it themselves following their lead? Have some of you thought about what that implies?

What would be a true step in the right direction is if US government agencies learned from Wikileaks and employed their methods as a way of gathering intelligence from informants.

This diplomatic cables bit just makes me think of when Paris Hilton's SMS log was compromised and all of her friends could see how she was talking shit about them.

[Back]

I am in the process of deleting both my Paypal and Amazon accounts.

[Stanley Burrell]

I am in the process of deleting both my Paypal and Amazon accounts.

Why don't you stop and think about it first, er? C'mon man, you're going to make a conscious effort to circle any aspect of your life in the direction the WikiLeaks finger points?

[Back]

Why don't you stop and think about it first, er? C'mon man, you're going to make a conscious effort to circle any aspect of your life in the direction the WikiLeaks finger points?

I no longer require their services, man. Chill.

[Warriorbird]

I no longer require their services, man. Chill.

http://provide.differentspace.com/dangerouslyoverreact.jpg

It ALMOST works.

[Back]

http://provide.differentspace.com/dangerouslyoverreact.jpg

It ALMOST works.

But not quite.

And I will add that making fun of activism is its absolute antithesis. Shout out from that comfy couch how nothing anyone does will affect anyone anyway so why bother?

[Warriorbird]

But not quite.

And I will add that making fun of activism is its absolute antithesis. Shout out from that comfy couch how nothing anyone does will affect anyone anyway so why bother?

Your activism here is weak-tie passivism. This is nearly as bad as being a bad-tie.

If you'd said you'd downloaded the torrent or made a donation I wouldn't have made fun of it (though others might've).

[Parkbandit]

But not quite.

And I will add that making fun of activism is its absolute antithesis. Shout out from that comfy couch how nothing anyone does will affect anyone anyway so why bother?

:rofl:

Activism isn't deleting your paypal account.

You need to take this to the streets man! If you really want to make a difference, start throwing Molotov cocktails at buildings until the cops show up. Tell those fucking government workers to fuck off and throw some cocktails in their direction. THAT will make a real difference and perhaps make this world a better place.

[Back]

WikiLeaks cables: Vatican refused to engage with child sex abuse inquiry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-vatican-child-sex-abuse-investigation)


Requests for information from the 2009 Murphy commission into sexual and physical abuse by clergy "offended many in the Vatican" who felt that the Irish government had "failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations", a cable says.

[TheEschaton]

The Vatican refused to help into an investigation of their own wrongdoing?!?!? SCANDALOUS!