The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: MikeBjerum on November 28, 2010, 09:22:20 PM
-
How long does Julian Assange think he and his organization is going to be able to keep releasing secrets before he develops a third nostril or heart burn ... literally?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AN5HL20101124 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AN5HL20101124)
He is not hammering one nation or another. He is attacking the entire world. At some point someone is going to do something.
And we have wondered if the black copters were circling our homes from time to time :o
-
This guy does like to live dangerously. Its not us he needs to be worried about though. The Russians, for one, tend to get a bit touchy about this stuff. If he keeps this up he'll be sleeping on Salman Rushdie's couch.
FQ13
-
Or Alexander Litvinenko's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
Or maybe with Anna Politkovskaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
-
The ultimate practical joke - A "disco ball" in his apartment that projects pin point red lasers moving around the room;
The ultimate birthday present - A tie tac that lights up bright red;
Or the best promotional tool from his eye doctor - a free set of frames with a bright red light in the center of the nose bridge ;D
I can't believe that this guy is long for the world if he keeps going. Actually, he has probably crossed the line far enough that the clock is already ticking.
-
It is PFC Bradley Manning that really pisses me off.
If they can't convict him of treason (followed shortly thereafter by long drop on a stout rope) them, hopefully, they can throw his ass in with the general population at Ft. Leavenworth for the rest of his short miserable life.
As for Assange, he thinks what he did is just and in the public interest and he is some sort of hero. They should publish every bit of information they have on him - IP addresses, bank account numbers, SSN or equivalent, addresses, associates information, parent's information, etc. Hey, the public has a right to know, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning)
-
I'll bet Manning gets a dishonorable discharge, but less than a year of jail time, if any.
-
I know a bunch of kids who would volunteer to pay him a visit if the DOD thinks it's necessary.
-
I'd be happy with Ichiban's suggestion - Convict him of what they have and know they can prove, send him to Leavenworth for 2, 5, 10 years, whatever, and leave him in the general population. When he is released, court martial what ever is left.
-
One can be sure there are hit teams after him as I write this; he's a walking dead man.
Now putting on my "tin foil hat" ;D ;):
What if this stuff is a coordinated leak to set the stage for a crack down on our personal freedoms?
Rep. King (R-NY) has called for classifying Wikileaks as a terrorist organization. Really? So what this group has done is equivalent to flying two 747s into the WTC buildings? They are the same as Timothy McVeigh/OKC bombing?
Hmmm....
-
Any body read any of them yet ?
-
Any body read any of them yet ?
Check out The Drudge Report. They are all over it with links to various papers. Thus far, it looks like a tempest in a teapot, just like last time. The shock is that it happened. What was evealed desn't seem all that draw jopping, but its just getting started. More to come.
FQ13
http://www.drudgereport.com/
-
Any body read any of them yet ?
I read a few. The ones I read were what I would call typical colleges discussing strategies for negotiation or venting the downside of an adversary. I didn't read anything that I would think was illegal, but it was venting of true feelings about people or countries. The kind of stuff one might say about the in-laws in private over a drink, but would be very sensitive if it were exposed over the dinner table.
I'm sure that as a person digs in there will be very sensitive material, but I'm inclined to let someone with worse insomnia than me to investigate.
-
David Brooks, a conservative columnist from the NY Times had a good op-ed on it today. His point was this. There is a difference between journalism and mischief making. People need to be free to talk candidly or real conversation breaks down. That requires a certain discretion. As M58 put it, you may say things about the inlaws in private. It doesn't mean you aren't still family. If you can't vent a bit, you can't function. Assage doesn't deem to get the difference between "confidential" and "conspiracy". I think Brooks goes a bit too far, but I tend to agree. Here's the article. Its worth a read.
FQ13
From today's NY Times
The Fragile Community
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 29, 2010
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, had moved 37 times by the time he reached his 14th birthday. His mother didn’t enroll him in the local schools because, as Raffi Khatchadourian wrote in a New Yorker profile, she feared “that formal education would inculcate an unhealthy respect for authority.”
She needn’t have worried. As a young computer hacker, he formed a group called International Subversives. As an adult, he wrote “Conspiracy as Governance,” a pseudo-intellectual online diatribe. He talks of vast “patronage networks” that constrain the human spirit.
Far from respecting authority, Assange seems to be an old-fashioned anarchist who believes that all ruling institutions are corrupt and public pronouncements are lies.
For someone with his mind-set, the decision to expose secrets is easy. If the hidden world is suspect, then everything should be revealed. As The New Yorker reported, WikiLeaks has published technical details about an Army device designed to prevent roadside bombs from detonating. It posted soldiers’ Social Security numbers. This week, the group celebrated the release of internal State Department documents with a triumphalist statement claiming that the documents expose the corruption, hypocrisy and venality of U.S. diplomats.
For him, it’s easy. But for everyone else, it’s hard. My colleagues on the news side of this newspaper do not share Assange’s mentality. As the various statements from the editors have made abundantly clear, they face a much thornier set of issues.
As journalists, they have a professional obligation to share information that might help people make informed decisions. That means asking questions like: How does the U.S. government lobby allies? What is the real nature of our relationship with Pakistani intelligence? At the same time, as humans and citizens, my colleagues know they have a moral obligation not to endanger lives or national security.
The Times has thus erected a series of filters between the 250,000 raw documents that WikiLeaks obtained and complete public exposure. The paper has released only a tiny percentage of the cables. Information that might endanger informants has been redacted. Specific cables have been put into context with broader reporting.
Yet it might be useful to consider one more filter. Consider it the World Order filter. The fact that we live our lives amid order and not chaos is the great achievement of civilization. This order should not be taken for granted.
This order is tenuously maintained by brave soldiers but also by talkative leaders and diplomats. Every second of every day, leaders and diplomats are engaged in a never-ending conversation. The leaked cables reveal this conversation. They show diplomats seeking information, cajoling each other and engaging in faux-friendships and petty hypocrisies as they seek to avoid global disasters.
Despite the imaginings of people like Assange, the conversation revealed in the cables is not devious and nefarious. The private conversation is similar to the public conversation, except maybe more admirable. Israeli and Arab diplomats can be seen reacting sympathetically and realistically toward one another. The Americans in the cables are generally savvy and honest. Iran’s neighbors are properly alarmed and reaching out.
Some people argue that this diplomatic conversation is based on mechanical calculations about national self-interest, and it won’t be affected by public exposure. But this conversation, like all conversations, is built on relationships. The quality of the conversation is determined by the level of trust. Its direction is influenced by persuasion and by feelings about friends and enemies.
The quality of the conversation is damaged by exposure, just as our relationships with our neighbors would be damaged if every private assessment were brought to the light of day. We’ve seen what happens when conversations deteriorate (look at the U.S. Congress), and it’s ugly.
The WikiLeaks dump will probably damage the global conversation. Nations will be less likely to share with the United States. Agencies will be tempted to return to the pre-9/11 silos. World leaders will get their back up when they read what is said about them. Cooperation against Iran may be harder to maintain because Arab leaders feel exposed and boxed in. This fragile international conversation is under threat. It’s under threat from WikiLeaks. It’s under threat from a Gresham’s Law effect, in which the level of public exposure is determined by the biggest leaker and the biggest traitor.
It should be possible to erect a filter that protects not only lives and operations but also international relationships. It should be possible to do articles on specific revelations — Is the U.S. using diplomats to spy on the U.N.? What missile technology did North Korea give to Iran? — without unveiling in a wholesale manner the nuts and bolts of the diplomatic enterprise. We depend on those human conversations for the limited order we enjoy every day.
-
Go here,
http://wikileaks.org/
The web site seems to be a PITA to navigate.
From what I have read so far it just reinforces my opinion that international relations are no different than kids on the school yard.
Looking forward to the books that use this stuff ;D
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_wikileaks_secret_sites (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_wikileaks_secret_sites)
The Pentagon declined to comment Monday on the details of what it called "stolen" documents containing classified informationbecause it was too busy prepping sniper teams.
Fixed quote for those that were wondering but afraid to ask.
-
Go here,
http://wikileaks.org/
The web site seems to be a PITA to navigate
I tried to read the 'secret' stuff from the sandbox a while back. Calling this site a PITA is a compliment!
-
He can't sleep now! He's under arrest in Britain on sexual assault charges filed in Switzerland(?). Of course, he claims the charges are politically motivated.
-
He can't sleep now! He's under arrest in Britain on sexual assault charges filed in Switzerland(?). Of course, he claims the charges are politically motivated.
They very well might be. Remember Scott Ritter? He was the US delgate on the UN WMD team. He claimed, loudly, that Saadam didn't have a WMD arsenal. He was accused of being a child molestor. No trial, no followup, but Bush shut him up. He was radioactive after that. This isn't a slam on W., its just how governments work. An accusation of rape is as good as a bullet for silencing you. >:( On the other hand? The guy might be a pervert, and Ritter might like little girls. ;D Who knows? But in both cases, it is damned convienent.
FQ13
-
Assange has been denied bail, His lawyer claims the charges stem from "consensual, but unprotected sex".
Governor Mike Huckabee said ...
"If we want to keep our nation's secrets 'SECRET' store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate."
-
Assange has been denied bail, His lawyer claims the charges stem from "consensual, but unprotected sex".
Consensual? One of them was asleep, according to the news.
Governor Mike Huckabee said ...
"If we want to keep our nation's secrets 'SECRET' store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate."
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!!!! ;D
-
Consensual? One of them was asleep, according to the news.
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!!!! ;D
Don't know any thing, just reporting what his lawyer was quoted as saying.
-
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, I know terrible harm can result from the release of much of this information. However much of it was not a secret, just ignored by the media. Having Hildabeast and the Tainted One embarrassed for breaking the law is something I want exposed, having their true comments about everything published is a good thing.
On the other side of things I don't want to see a "Jack Anderson" type of tragedy, he was an American reporter who thought he should publish the names of Iranian military officers still loyal to the Shah after the fall of Iran. Many of these people were executed thanks to him.
-
There's 2 ways of looking at it, on one hand is the fact that the info was not intended for release, on the other hand it is fascinating inside back ground info for researchers and people with an interest in this type of stuff.
If I were not afraid of becoming collateral damage in the cyber attacks on his site I would have downloaded the entire thing.
-
http://www.switched.com/gallery/wikileaks-james-bond-like-data-headquarters/#/0 (http://www.switched.com/gallery/wikileaks-james-bond-like-data-headquarters/#/0)
Interesting office!