Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bill the dwarf]

Its the same Senator that forced Wikileaks off Amazon Cloud, so hes totally unbiased, right?

[Aklyon]

I thought there was something in the Constitution or an Amendment that said you couldn't be charged retroactively?

[Sowelu]

LIEBERMAN?

ugh

The less we see of him the better.  That said, I started losing my immense and great sympathy for Wikileaks at around the time they released the list of the most important US strategic sites.  They've sure gone an awful long way from whistle-blowing.

Hm.  I can't find any details on what Lieberman's up to.  Here's the best article I can find:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-joe-lieberman-new-york-times-investigated  Basically his argument is that newspapers that published Wikileans info violated the Espionage Act.  Which...wow, reading about it, the thoughtcrime they've punished with it is a little scary, but it's hard to argue that Assange didn't actively try to harm the Armed Forces' operations.  I mean...seriously.  (Especially under the past caselaw for that Act.)

Always remember, though, that the US is not at war (right?).  All our actions over there are peacekeeping missions.  War can only be declared through act of Congress and they...never did.

[Aklyon]

The guy wants the new York Times to be investigated?
And of course, he tells Fox News.

Ugh.

[Leafsnail]

So, is anyone gonna make the slippery slope argument?  Or is that only applicable to racists calling for Obama to be killed?

[Sowelu]

So, is anyone gonna make the slippery slope argument?  Or is that only applicable to racists calling for Obama to be killed?

Which way is the slope going?  "First they came for Wikileaks, then they came for the newspapers, then they came for me"?  Or "First whistleblowing was legal, then it was legal to get our troops killed, then it was legal to put anyone's entire private life online"?

[Phmcw]

Both have been made of course, just not here.
Although I daresay, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/students-warned-read-wikileaks-government-job/, they will sorta come for you if you dare read wikileak and seek a job at the gov.

[Sowelu]

Makes sense.  People who don't read stolen documents are people who are less likely to steal documents.  And there's a lot more people who didn't read the wikileaked stuff than ones who did.

[Leafsnail]

Which way is the slope going?  "First they came for Wikileaks, then they came for the newspapers, then they came for me"?  Or "First whistleblowing was legal, then it was legal to get our troops killed, then it was legal to put anyone's entire private life online"?

Eh, I've already made the slippery slope joke before, so I feel unable to respond to this.

[smjjames]

Just how is that going to be enforced anyway? What the OP said that is.

Still, WikiLeaks crossed the line into oblivion when they did the release of stragetic sites since that stuff is secret for a REASON, not due to some goverment conspiracy or corruption. Lieberman aside, WikiLeaks does need to be shut down before they do any more real damage and because they crossed the point of no return.

I'm all for freedom of speech and revealing goverment corruption and blunders, but wikileaks isn't the way to do it.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Still, WikiLeaks crossed the line into oblivion when they did the release of stragetic sites since that stuff is secret for a REASON, not due to some goverment conspiracy or corruption. Lieberman aside, WikiLeaks does need to be shut down before they do any more real damage and because they crossed the point of no return.

It's not that it needs to be shut down, it's that there needs to be some guidelines, specifically "If there's a reason for it to be secret, LET IT STAY SECRET."

[Aklyon]

Still, WikiLeaks crossed the line into oblivion when they did the release of stragetic sites since that stuff is secret for a REASON, not due to some goverment conspiracy or corruption. Lieberman aside, WikiLeaks does need to be shut down before they do any more real damage and because they crossed the point of no return.

It's not that it needs to be shut down, it's that there needs to be some guidelines, specifically "If there's a good reason for it to be secret, LET IT STAY SECRET."

Theres a reason for everything. A good reason, however...

[Fossaman]

Still, WikiLeaks crossed the line into oblivion when they did the release of stragetic sites since that stuff is secret for a REASON, not due to some goverment conspiracy or corruption. Lieberman aside, WikiLeaks does need to be shut down before they do any more real damage and because they crossed the point of no return.

It's not that it needs to be shut down, it's that there needs to be some guidelines, specifically "If there's a reason for it to be secret, LET IT STAY SECRET."

So, because they've obviously shown poor judgment on what should and should not be released, they should get a slap on the wrist and get to keep going? That sounds like a bad idea to me.

[ChairmanPoo]

That list is not such a big deal anyway.

[smjjames]

Not to mention that important stragetic sites is a very good flag for something that needs to be secret, especially military related stragetic sites.

The REAL problem though is fixing the security of our security system. There is a CNN article that says the security ratio or something is 60%, which is way too close to 50/50 for comfort. That manning guy, if he is the only one who grabbed all of the data, shouldn't have been able to get that much stuff.

I agree that some things would be ridiculous to keep a secret, like the concern over pakistan nuke program, that is actually well known. But where do you draw the line between things that need to be kept secret and things that don't? People with a 'fuck the world' agenda like Assanage shouldn't be the ones to make that decision.

That list is not such a big deal anyway.

Which list?