Exactly my point.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
posted December 08, 2010 09:02 PM
The guy challenges security measures. This is a good thing for security in general.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
posted December 09, 2010 08:29 AM
good rittens, is all i can muster for that.
i mean he leaked so much i dont think they can kill him,but they can exile him to iraq or something????
____________
types in obscure english
Here's some insightful reflections on this situation with WikiLeaks. Paul concludes with some questions to ask ourselves at the end of the video.
Was it unnecessary and even dickheaded for Assagne to release certain documents? Perhaps, though for the most part I'm quite happy to see this stuff blown out in the open. Either way, we should prioritize the issue here: if anything is a threat to our security, it is some of the activities of the government itself, not this Assagne person. I'm quite glad that it happened to be a foreigner that's releasing this stuff because I'd have a great deal of pity for a U.S. citizen doing it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
Julian Assange is the best thing that has happened this year and maybe since I was born in 1995.
These leaks prove to we all live in false democracies. It is good to know the truth. Assange will become a martyr if he is killed and more, and more documents will leak. It will never stop. I support him.
And the "rape" thing is ridiculous and I hope the entire world LOLs at Sweden because of it.
I also think the politicans reactions are hilarious "I HAD NO IDEA!" or "I REALLY CAN'T COMMENT THIS BECAUSE... I... UH... DON'T KNOW".
But really, is anybody suprised that all governments have a lot of secrets et cetera? I thought it was kind of obvious there wasn't any true democracy.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
Hoo boy am I behind. Been so busy. Taking a break from all of this month. 2 kids are very time consuming.
For one, Julian never was given any form of security clearance, there are also shield laws that protect journalists which were also upheld by the supreme court when the government tried to punish the New York Times, so he never broke any laws. (It's all acceptable under the first amendment.
He never was a citizen of a country he was responsible for leaking on and never swore and oath to any, therefore he cannot be a traitor.
He's never leaked anything "top secret". And really, everybody in government should know if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Making fun of world leaders using government email systems that 10 or 20 years down the line would probably be declassified anyway is not a smart thing to do. What's more, the media is focusing oddly on Julian. Why aren't they going after the actual whistle blowers and the ones whose policies made the leaks possible within the government? They need a straw man to hold up and deflect the blame where it squarely lies.
This level of persecution has been seen many times in the past. A recent case would be Dr. Steven Hatfill. The scientist the government accused of the anthrax mailing and pursued for nearly a decade before they caught the right guy and the government rightfully got sued. Nearly a decade of harrassment by individuals, police, etc. They stole his money, froze his accounts, destroyed his property, got him fired. Unable to get employment because nobody wants to hire somebody accused of murder, especially on national TV, even though the evidence was anecdotal at best.
Daniel Ellsberg, the original journalist to leak the pentagon papers showing the Vietnam war was based on a lie was also treated much the same as these individuals. Part of the reason Nixon had to resign was because some government agents tried to break into Daniel's psychiatrist's office and steal his records to try to discredit him. (Even though Nixon was in many ways elected to try to end the war and bring the troops home, once in office he did the opposite. Like Obama really.)
There are those Americans that think that American rights to free speech do not apply to non-citizens. but clearly it's written that everybody regardless of citizenship and again, given precedent by the Supreme Court in the 1800's no less, have the same rights in the United States of America. If somebody in another country says something the government doesn't like, American law protects them anyway.
Now, I'm not saying Julian was in the right entirely, but I do also believe that he has done nothing illegal. You can do plenty of things that are perfectly legal that are harmful to yourself or others afterall. But what has Julian done? Exposed a few military cover ups of civilian deaths and exposed diplomats as being two-faced. It's really just a confirmation of what was already accepted fact concerning every country.
Ultimately, who cares? We are giving him too much attention. Focus on the people actually breaking the law. Because without Julian Assange, they will just find another way to get the information out anyway. The American Federal government is a scary, scary beast when it has its attention focused on somebody.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on Twitter.
Quote:Now, I'm not saying Julian was in the right entirely, but I do also believe that he has done nothing illegal.
He conspired with a memaber of the US military to obtain classified documents. Some of those documents were classified as "Confidential" and some as "Secret." He then published those classified documents with an intent to harm the United States.
His actions were:
1) Espionage
2) Terror
His actions have put lots of lives in danger.
Since he acted as a spy during a time of war he is subject to the death penalty and I certainly hope the US pursues that against him and the soldier who gave the documents to him.
In last week's Technocracy, I wrote about the WikiLeaks controversy. More specifically, I wrote about the ways intimidation of a website owner's support and infrastructure services – services paid for by the website in question – can silence or impede the expression of free speech. I made no real attempt to evaluate the activities of WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange, except to say that I consider Mr. Assange little better than a terrorist. Most of Mr. Assange's difficulties have, to this point, revolved around issues that were anything but an evaluation of whether he has committed a crime.
Recent news has made it easier to characterize WikiLeaks and Assange politically and socially. It has also underscored, starkly, the real war we fight in contemporary society. We fight this war regardless of our knowledge of it. We win or lose this war despite the widespread ignorance of it that often characterizes our governments, our allies and our citizenry.
In the summer of 2009, I first wrote of this war in "Why we need cyber-warriors now." In that column, I spoke of a "proxy war" even now "taking place behind the veil of modern technology." I will repeat now what I said then: Every minute of the day, external foes are mounting assaults on American infrastructure, civilian American assets and American military targets. Those enemies do this through the virtual world. Their foot soldiers are an army of disparate computer hackers, ranging from state-sponsored operatives to ordinary people in almost every nation on the planet:
The problems don't stop with the hostile governments of emerging military and technological threats like China. According to Popsci.com, it isn't just China's government that is attacking our cyber-infrastructure. It's also hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. ... The FBI can do little to prosecute hackers in foreign countries, least of all hostile nations like China (whose government turns a blind eye to simple copyright infringements, must less wholesale cyber war). The hackers are also becoming harder to monitor and track through conventional means.
The problem is that "hackers" are no longer "hackers." Slowly, popular culture is perverting the image of the Internet criminal, transforming him or her into a noble figure of free speech, dissent and speaking truth to power. This imagery is fiction, if for no other reason than it is not now, nor has it ever been, a noble act of freedom of expression to harass, silence or harm commercially an entity whose lawful activity you dislike. Yet this is precisely what has happened – and "hackers" are now "hacktivists," presumed by wretched propagandists like Michael Moore to be committing acts of "patriotism" rather than propagating wanton electronic vandalism, fraud, intimidation and theft.
Many Americans first became aware of "hacktivism" last week, when supporters of WikiLeaks, angered by several commercial firms' withdrawal of services to Assange and his organization, targeted these businesses for denial-of-service attacks (and other electronic crimes). Media outlets were quick to declare that "the first global cyber war has begun," characterizing these criminal acts in sickeningly fawning articles as acts of resistance against "authoritarian regimes" and "obvious symbols of authority." National Public Radio called the hack-attacks "surprisingly easy social protest," while columnist Chris O'Brien said these virtual terrorist attacks signal a "rise of new powers," a potentially "epic" erosion of national sovereignty that redefines how we describe and affiliate ourselves as citizens.
The wide-eyed adoration of criminals and agitators by left-wing pundits and "journalists" around the world should not surprise us. Such left-wing socio-political functionaries adore anything that repudiates American exceptionalism or otherwise diminishes American power and influence. This is why, predictably, a host of left-leaning public figures – Michael Moore included – are so quick to hold up Assange as some kind of crusader for free speech ... rather than the simple agent of espionage he is by definition. A man who releases confidential information to a worldwide information network, regardless of how he came by that information, is simply disseminating classified information obtained illegally. Such a man is free to do so if he truly wishes to go to war with the nation(s) whose documents he is publicly sharing, but he should not then whine that as an icon of free expression, he should be free of the far-reaching consequences for his actions.
In judging the nature of Assange and WikiLeaks, we must come back to "hacktivism." When hackers distribute a computer virus to disable Iran's nuclear program, they are arguably acting in the best interests of all concerned. When hackers crash the websites of Visa, Mastercard or PayPal because they're mad that these organizations won't funnel money to Assange and his terrorist organization, they're simply bullies. The difference is not a question of whose side you happen to be on, much as leftists would have us believe. The difference is found in the context of these acts. Right and wrong exist. Rogue nations with nuclear weapons are a threat to peaceful citizens around the world. Banking firms that refuse to finance Julian Assange's releases of confidential documents aren't hurting or threatening anyone; they have the choice to refuse commerce they find objectionable or disreputable.
You may say that it is unfair to judge Assange and his organization by the criminal acts of their supporters. WikiLeaks does not control the actions of supposedly anonymous hackers or the hateful bloviating of cretins like Michael Moore, you may point out. You would be right, too. Assange, however, told us everything we need to know about him by creating and distributing an encrypted "doomsday" file, the key to which will be released if Assange judges he has been sufficiently misused by those in power. What is this if not extortion – and what is extortion if not the tool, the fundamental source of power, of a terrorist?
Julian Assange is a terrorist. We know this by his actions. His supporters are those who hate and fear America. By their words and deeds, we know them to be terrorist sympathizers.
In last week's Technocracy, I wrote about the WikiLeaks controversy. More specifically, I wrote about the ways intimidation of a website owner's support and infrastructure services – services paid for by the website in question – can silence or impede the expression of free speech. I made no real attempt to evaluate the activities of WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange, except to say that I consider Mr. Assange little better than a terrorist. Most of Mr. Assange's difficulties have, to this point, revolved around issues that were anything but an evaluation of whether he has committed a crime.
Recent news has made it easier to characterize WikiLeaks and Assange politically and socially. It has also underscored, starkly, the real war we fight in contemporary society. We fight this war regardless of our knowledge of it. We win or lose this war despite the widespread ignorance of it that often characterizes our governments, our allies and our citizenry.
In the summer of 2009, I first wrote of this war in "Why we need cyber-warriors now." In that column, I spoke of a "proxy war" even now "taking place behind the veil of modern technology." I will repeat now what I said then: Every minute of the day, external foes are mounting assaults on American infrastructure, civilian American assets and American military targets. Those enemies do this through the virtual world. Their foot soldiers are an army of disparate computer hackers, ranging from state-sponsored operatives to ordinary people in almost every nation on the planet:
The problems don't stop with the hostile governments of emerging military and technological threats like China. According to Popsci.com, it isn't just China's government that is attacking our cyber-infrastructure. It's also hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. ... The FBI can do little to prosecute hackers in foreign countries, least of all hostile nations like China (whose government turns a blind eye to simple copyright infringements, must less wholesale cyber war). The hackers are also becoming harder to monitor and track through conventional means.
The problem is that "hackers" are no longer "hackers." Slowly, popular culture is perverting the image of the Internet criminal, transforming him or her into a noble figure of free speech, dissent and speaking truth to power. This imagery is fiction, if for no other reason than it is not now, nor has it ever been, a noble act of freedom of expression to harass, silence or harm commercially an entity whose lawful activity you dislike. Yet this is precisely what has happened – and "hackers" are now "hacktivists," presumed by wretched propagandists like Michael Moore to be committing acts of "patriotism" rather than propagating wanton electronic vandalism, fraud, intimidation and theft.
Many Americans first became aware of "hacktivism" last week, when supporters of WikiLeaks, angered by several commercial firms' withdrawal of services to Assange and his organization, targeted these businesses for denial-of-service attacks (and other electronic crimes). Media outlets were quick to declare that "the first global cyber war has begun," characterizing these criminal acts in sickeningly fawning articles as acts of resistance against "authoritarian regimes" and "obvious symbols of authority." National Public Radio called the hack-attacks "surprisingly easy social protest," while columnist Chris O'Brien said these virtual terrorist attacks signal a "rise of new powers," a potentially "epic" erosion of national sovereignty that redefines how we describe and affiliate ourselves as citizens.
The wide-eyed adoration of criminals and agitators by left-wing pundits and "journalists" around the world should not surprise us. Such left-wing socio-political functionaries adore anything that repudiates American exceptionalism or otherwise diminishes American power and influence. This is why, predictably, a host of left-leaning public figures – Michael Moore included – are so quick to hold up Assange as some kind of crusader for free speech ... rather than the simple agent of espionage he is by definition. A man who releases confidential information to a worldwide information network, regardless of how he came by that information, is simply disseminating classified information obtained illegally. Such a man is free to do so if he truly wishes to go to war with the nation(s) whose documents he is publicly sharing, but he should not then whine that as an icon of free expression, he should be free of the far-reaching consequences for his actions.
In judging the nature of Assange and WikiLeaks, we must come back to "hacktivism." When hackers distribute a computer virus to disable Iran's nuclear program, they are arguably acting in the best interests of all concerned. When hackers crash the websites of Visa, Mastercard or PayPal because they're mad that these organizations won't funnel money to Assange and his terrorist organization, they're simply bullies. The difference is not a question of whose side you happen to be on, much as leftists would have us believe. The difference is found in the context of these acts. Right and wrong exist. Rogue nations with nuclear weapons are a threat to peaceful citizens around the world. Banking firms that refuse to finance Julian Assange's releases of confidential documents aren't hurting or threatening anyone; they have the choice to refuse commerce they find objectionable or disreputable.
You may say that it is unfair to judge Assange and his organization by the criminal acts of their supporters. WikiLeaks does not control the actions of supposedly anonymous hackers or the hateful bloviating of cretins like Michael Moore, you may point out. You would be right, too. Assange, however, told us everything we need to know about him by creating and distributing an encrypted "doomsday" file, the key to which will be released if Assange judges he has been sufficiently misused by those in power. What is this if not extortion – and what is extortion if not the tool, the fundamental source of power, of a terrorist?
Julian Assange is a terrorist. We know this by his actions. His supporters are those who hate and fear America. By their words and deeds, we know them to be terrorist sympathizers.
This looks like a perfect opportunity to bring Godwin's law into effect so...
Well, somebody has to believe in those "terror" bull, doesn't it? After all there are people with lesser and bigger resistance to governmental propaganda.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
Of people who only buy the propaganda of a certain party, which usually is also the same as the propaganda of the other party with a slightly different spin.
At least I can safely say today, Mr Elodin actually agrees with Obama.
(Not that it makes him entirely right either. NOBODY EVER is fully right or wrong. The human condition is a flawed process and he's also done a fair bit of wrong as well.)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on Twitter.
Quote:Of people who only buy the propaganda of a certain party, which usually is also the same as the propaganda of the other party with a slightly different spin.
At least I can safely say today, Mr Elodin actually agrees with Obama.
Scary huh? It is one of the few things I agree with Obama on. I'm an independant conservative.
____________ Revelation
Personally I think the US will persue charges of espionage against Julian Assange and he will be found guilty of of that and other charges. I also think that new legislation will be crafted to deal with his brand of high tech terrorism.
____________ Revelation
Quote:He released classified information. That's one of the worst crimes that could be committed. Of course there should be a trial....and then kill him. I normally don't even support the death penalty, but in cases like that I do.
Like the properly conceited Redneck you are. What a surprise you fall into that stereotype...
I think Shyrani's quote put it nicely. Had it happened in China, he would have been called a dissidant and given a nobel prize.
But hey, this is America we're talking about. So naturally HE must be evil! And put to death of course. Yep. For spreading terror. Something America never did.
The New York Times leaked plenty of actual "Top Secret" documents in its time, including the illegal eavesdropping program still being run to this day by the government. Also, people tend to claim the diplomatic cables were just haphazardly tossed out. They weren't, they were redacted and on top of that, less than 1% of them were released (Less than 2000 out of 250,000+).
There is no crime here, as I have mentioned before, he does not have any more qualifications as a terrorist than people with bumper stickers advocating the Presidents death.
It's only illegal to release classified documents without government permission if you work for the government directly (or subcontracted to it). The government does not have legal framework to stand on for this if they actually seek to prosecute him legally.
What's scary here is that the government 'is' probably able to pretend that 'terrorist' does not mean 'person that seeks to do irreparable harm or assist others in doing so in order to spread terror' to simply being 'person the government disagrees with, political dissident, etc'. I swear, my family moved away from an area that was being too heavily influenced by China, but I see this crap turning the rest of the world into China as well.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on Twitter.
This thread is pages long: 
posted December 08, 2010 05:41 PM
.
It is one of the few things I agree with Obama on. I'm an independant conservative.
