Print

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

[Aqizzar]

Also, the diplomatic stuff in the Middle east shows good restraint on the part of the US in the face of the arab nations urging more action (most likely military action) on Iran.

Well, duh.  Part of the reason why the United States spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined is because many of our "allies" in the Middle East, and parts of Europe for that matter, have no real military of their own.  America has a giant military to basically form the contract defense of countries that, let's face it, help keep the global price of oil down, or serve some other strategic purpose.  In a very cynical sense, divorced from all concerns, it actually does speak quite well of the American government that we're actually doing as little as we are in the Middle East, compared to what's demanded of us by allies that have the energy market by the balls.

And for that matter, how little separation there is between what we say in public and in private.  The public version is a waffling version of "no", the private version is "no" with a lot more words and uncomfortable specifics.

[Tsarwash]

It's clearly a witchhunt. I just wish that the European government's had the balls to stand up to the Americans. As the say, information is power, therefore those that know secrets have power over those who do not. What he is doing is threatening the power of certain individuals in power.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if Wikileaks is shut down or not, as there will be others who poke their heads above the parapet. Look into the case of Katherine Gun. She decided to go to the press because she found out that the US and UK were bugging (or planning to) the United Nations headquarters. And also bugging the homes of certain UN diplomats. Which is against international law, of course. We really cannot pretend that the governments of the UK and the US are squeaky clean. For god's sake, in Iraq, our troops kidnapped an Iraqi grandmother and tortured her to death and left her body by the roadside. British troops forced an innocent civilian teenager who clearly said that he couldn't swim, to cross a canal and watched him drown.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QEqpl_SjE9MJ:www.globalresearch.ca/index.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D16896+iraqi+grandmother&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kDNqdoyDGYcJ:psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/Iraqi_youth_drowned_when_British_soldiers_forced_him_to_swim.html+iraqi+man+drowned&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

[Leafsnail]

IMO it also reflects American attitudes (or at least that particular diplomat) with royals, particularily english ones.

Can't really blame them.

Actually, that is one interesting facet: some of the cables show that the US government was blatantly violating privacy and other government's secrets.  I mean, why do they need to know the credit card numbers of UN representatives?

[Earthquake Damage]

I have nothing to add, but all this is damned interesting.

[nenjin]

I read he was arrested today and was prepared to read about some daring, multi-million dollar intelligence operation that sniffed out his location and sent the black choppas after him.

But he actually turned himself in.

Military-industrial complex, I am disappoint.

[smjjames]

@Tsarwash: We've (the US) have had a few bad seeds in the military as well. Can't really add much else to that.

[Aqizzar]

But he actually turned himself in.

Military-industrial complex, I am disappoint.

Speaking purely extemporaneously, I believe Assange's plan was that he would fight the sexual crimes charges head on, believing them to be a smokescreen intended to get him into territory more favorable to American espionage charges (or whatever).  He'd do his best to avoid extradition and try to win back some public opinion by not acting like a criminal, i.e. on the run.

I think he shot himself in the foot when the judge asked him for a home address and he gave a PO Box.  He's slick, but Blofeld he ain't.

[SalmonGod]

But he actually turned himself in.

Military-industrial complex, I am disappoint.

Speaking purely extemporaneously, I believe Assange's plan was that he would fight the sexual crimes charges head on, believing them to be a smokescreen intended to get him into territory more favorable to American espionage charges (or whatever).  He'd do his best to avoid extradition and try to win back some public opinion by not acting like a criminal, i.e. on the run.

I think he shot himself in the foot when the judge asked him for a home address and he gave a PO Box.  He's slick, but Blofeld he ain't.

I'm also guessing he knew he couldn't run for long, and it was better to be arrested in plain sight.  To be caught outside the public eye could easily turn quite ugly.  Authorities could do whatever they wanted to him and make up any story to justify it.

[Pillow_Killer]

Well he DID kinda molest her, and the condom... I do believe hte attention is generated because of it, but those charges ARE legit.

[ChairmanPoo]

The charges are BS. The question is if they are smokescreen BS or scorned woman BS

[Aqizzar]

Well he DID kinda molest her, and the condom... I do believe hte attention is generated because of it, but those charges ARE legit.

Well, no, they're not "legit", not yet.  They will be if he is found guilty - that's what trials are for, not accusations.

[smjjames]

The charges are BS. The question is if they are smokescreen BS or scorned woman BS

Yea, they sounded like BS to me in the post where they are mentioned.

[SalmonGod]

We should all spam Interpol with reports of people we know who are dicks in their personal lives.

[Pillow_Killer]

Dude, being a dick is one thing, and molestation and rape is another. Face it, assange has a "star" problem.

[ed boy]

I believe as a person, that there should be no such thing as state secrets.  Private, individual secrets certainly, but the state's business is everyone's business.  If you as the government don't want something found out, then keep a good lid on it, but I do honestly believe that governments should have no legal recourse against internal information made public.

So you think that the names of all a country's spies should be public?  The nuclear passcodes?  Undercover cops?  The exact minutes of a meeting where France and Germany talk about how they really feel about England?

Thank you for not reading.  I didn't say governments shouldn't try to keeps things a secret.  Y'know, the old fashioned way, by only telling things to people you can trust the information with, and keeping your paperwork in places other people can't get it.  Put up walls around the missile launching computers and stuff.  I'm just saying, that once something is made public, the government's response should be "how can we do a better job of it not getting out", and not "how can we destroy the person who did it".

Stealing information from a government archive?  Yeah, that's a serious crime, because you broke into the archive and stole stuff.  Telling something you were trusted with?  Don't expect to ever be told anything again, and your boss should find better people to trust.  And hey, if you told it to an enemy spy, that's abetting the enemy.  But telling it to a reporter, no.

You speak of "how can we do a better job of it not getting out" and "how can we destroy the person who did it" as if they are completely unrelated things. Not only does doing the latter to someone prevent them from doing the former again, it also provides a disincentive to dissuade other people from doing the former. It won't prevent all such incidents, but saying that we shouldn't bother because incidents like that will still occur is like saying that we should scrap the entire policing system since people still commit crimes anyway.