Emmeran wrote:

My point remains that some of this information is serious and sensitive and should be handled with respect to the possible events which could result.

Absolutely a fair point.  Assange either doesn't give a rat's ass what harm flows from his publication, or else he really wants that harm to occur.  He'll get his 15 minutes of infamy and others will pay the price.

Dmtdust wrote:

Everytime I see you guys get your knickers in a twist over Wikileaks something like this pops up:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/1 … google_cnn

Easily tops any previous deprivation North Korea's had to endure. Merciful Layla.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Fled wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

My point remains that some of this information is serious and sensitive and should be handled with respect to the possible events which could result.

Absolutely a fair point.  Assange either doesn't give a rat's ass what harm flows from his publication, or else he really wants that harm to occur.  He'll get his 15 minutes of infamy and others will pay the price.

Yes we certainly don't need Assange to cause us harm.  We are quite able, all by ourselves, of causing the requisite amount of harm necessary during pursuit of our little incursions.  Thank you very much.

MSG Tripps wrote:

Link to YouTube page

Gee Thanks Tripps, last thing we needed was more stink in here.

Emmeran wrote:

Gee Thanks Tripps, last thing we needed was more stink in here.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance;
baffle them with bullshit.

Dmtdust wrote:

FOIA... oh yes, in SPADES.  Keep swallowing that crap.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/f … misconduct

Yup . . . it's a virtual black out, fuckin' Federalist Nazi's

Through a careful comparison of thousands of pages of documents we received from this FOIA request

I'm so glad to hear that inconsistencies are now EVIL!   Get over your fear of government, it really doesn't become you.

Wow, Emmeran, from your reaction to Assange one would think he's an ex-boyfriend of your daughter's or something like that.

The guy who supplied Assange with the documents is the criminal.  Whoever allowed that guy access to the info is incompetent.  From the way you wrap yourself in the flag and try to defend indefensible stupidity and bumbling ham-handedness as a bold stand against terrorism I would think you're gunning for a job at the TSA.  Are you?

Emmeran wrote:

I'm so glad to hear that inconsistencies are now EVIL!   Get over your fear of government, it really doesn't become you.

You don't have to fear them to hate them.....

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

—P.-J. Proudhon

Last edited by Dirckman (2010-12-13 23:16:30)

Dmtdust wrote:

The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently."  - Gustav Landauer

Excellent quote.  In a recent article the author, a voluntaryist, recommends that we ask the statists in our life if they would promote violence against us or our property to achieve something that is important to them.  If they say "No" then you inform them what voting and the state really are.  If they say "Yes" then they are people who we obviously do not have a good relationship with and we need to reject them and get them out of our life.

except that I had an aversion to authority

Don't feel bad, this is a symptom of a lifetime of security; this symptom is common in wealthy and secure countries and almost non-existant in places where the bullet hits the bone.

choad wrote:

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/i … 6/main.jpg

RS: The Yank Face of Wikileaks.

a software program invented 15 years ago by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

Welcome to yesterday..... wake up and smell the coffee; and let's not go into the reality that this bizarro really is.

WTF

Decadence wrote:

Washington Post wrote:

. . .  it's mainly known by its all-too-apt acronym: W.T.F.

Damn it.  No-Thing pisses me off more than a bureaucracy feigning self-a-wareness.

Don't worry: it's a totally ironic self-awareness that easily translates into indifference.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/ … tml?hpt=C2

Governments require monitoring, but exposures such as those by WikiLeaks and similar outlets may produce unintended consequences. One result may be that fewer records are kept of diplomatic activities, thus curtailing, rather than advancing, transparency and openness

This trend I've witnessed first hand; in light of SEC document retention rules topics which once would have created a huge paper trail are now only discussed verbally or with hand written notes which are collected and shredded after the meeting.  Humans are ingenious creatures and will find a way to maintain their confidentiality.

Emmeran wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/01/skinner.wikileaks.history/index.html?hpt=C2

Governments require monitoring, but exposures such as those by WikiLeaks and similar outlets may produce unintended consequences. One result may be that fewer records are kept of diplomatic activities, thus curtailing, rather than advancing, transparency and openness

This trend I've witnessed first hand; in light of SEC document retention rules topics which once would have created a huge paper trail are now only discussed verbally or with hand written notes which are collected and shredded after the meeting.  Humans are ingenious creatures and will find a way to maintain their confidentiality.

That's all to the good, maybe the cheating bastards will screw up and get caught!

Emmeran wrote:

SEC document retention rules topics which once would have created a huge paper trail are now only discussed verbally or with hand written notes which are collected and shredded after the meeting.  Humans are ingenious creatures and will find a way to maintain their confidentiality.

"Don't write if you can talk;
don't talk if you can nod;
don't nod if you can wink."

This ancient chestnut, old when I was new, began here. Chicago stole it. Go looking for this quote on the web, as I did just now, it's got wikileaks written all over it.

choad wrote:

http://www.sofiaecho.com/shimg/zx500y290_1016332.jpg

Bulgaria?

Wikileaks scalp.

choad wrote:

Wikileaks, according to the NYTimes.

This is a prime example of what I've observed all across the "mainstream media"--a desire to cast Assange and Wikileaks in the most negative possible light. 
From Gawker:

But there's something unseemly about Keller attacking him so openly and gleefully. This is the man, for better or worse, whose effort and innovation made possible the little e-book Keller is hawking. He had accomplished reporting feats—in terms of sheer breadth and volume—that no one at the Times ever had, or ever will, match. He had something that the Times desperately wanted, and shared it with them, for free. The fact that he's also an asshole doesn't mean Keller ought to go on braying about it

They know, though they will never admit, that Wikileaks is doing what they should have been doing (and, once upon a time, would have done much better) for lo these many, many years.  But they've all traded journalism for blurbing and investigation for transcribing press releases. 

The jealousy is so thick and so deep it's a wonder they're not drowning in it.

George Orr wrote:

choad wrote:

Wikileaks, according to the NYTimes.

This is a prime example of what I've observed all across the "mainstream media"--a desire to cast Assange and Wikileaks in the most negative possible light. 
From Gawker:

But there's something unseemly about Keller attacking him so openly and gleefully. This is the man, for better or worse, whose effort and innovation made possible the little e-book Keller is hawking. He had accomplished reporting feats—in terms of sheer breadth and volume—that no one at the Times ever had, or ever will, match. He had something that the Times desperately wanted, and shared it with them, for free. The fact that he's also an asshole doesn't mean Keller ought to go on braying about it

They know, though they will never admit, that Wikileaks is doing what they should have been doing (and, once upon a time, would have done much better) for lo these many, many years.  But they've all traded journalism for blurbing and investigation for transcribing press releases. 

The jealousy is so thick and so deep it's a wonder they're not drowning in it.

Good point

choad wrote:

At least the uproar won't go away any time soon.

...this is likely to present serious obstacles to US-based criminal proceedings against Assange...

I believe that Assange has deliberately presented himself as the "personification" of Wikileaks--the focus, and therefore the target for its detractors. 

He may be a flake but he's very, very smart--and, at least in his own mind, quite brave.  When you hear "Wikileaks" you automatically think of Assange.  As long as people are following/attacking/trying to discredit the mysterious and curiously photogenic Aussie, the rest of the organization is as obscure--and apparently as busy--as ever.

On the other hand, if the powers-that-be believed that they could eliminate this irritant by eliminating Julian Assange, he'd have been dead long ago.  And, as the face of Wikileaks, if he's sullied badly enough in public perception Wikileaks will be sullied as well.