wikileaks: the diplomacy dump. - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 12-16-2010, 06:52 AM

this column by naomi wolf is enlightening about the charadeness of the charade we are watching:

Quote:

Sweden's Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange's Arrest

As I have been making the case on media outlets in the past few days that the British and Swedish sex crime charges related actions against Julian Assange are so extraordinarily and unprecedentedly severe -- compared to how prosecutors always treat far more cut-and-dry allegations than those in question in this case worldwide, including in the Scandinavian countries, and that thus the pretext of using these charges against Assange is a pimping of feminism by the State and an insult to rape victims -- I have found myself up against a bizarre fantasy in the minds of my (mostly male) debating opponents.

The fantasy is that somehow this treatment -- a global manhunt, solitary confinement in the Victorian cell that drove Oscar Wilde to suicidal despair within a matter of days, and now a bracelet tracking his movements -- is not atypical, because somehow Sweden must be a progressively hot-blooded but still progressively post-feminist paradise for sexual norms in which any woman in any context can bring the full force of the law against any man who oversteps any sexual boundary.

Well, I was in Norway in March of this year at a global gathering for women leaders on International Women's Day, and heard extensively from specialists in sex crime and victims' rights in Sweden. So I knew this position taken by the male-dominated US, British and Swedish media was, basically, horsesh-t. But none of the media outlets hyperventilating now about how this global-manhunt/Bourne-identity-chase-scene-level treatment of a sex crime allegation originating in Sweden must be 'normative' has bothered to do any actual reporting of how rape -- let alone the far more ambiguous charges of Assange's accusers, which are not charges of rape but of a category called 'sex by surprise,' which has no analog elsewhere -- is actually prosecuted in Sweden.

Guess what: Sweden has HIGHER rates of rape than other comparable countries -- including higher than the US and Britain, higher than Denmark and Finland -- and the same Swedish authorities going after Assange do a worse job prosecuting reported rapes than do police and the judiciary in any comparable country. And these are flat-out, unambiguous reported rape cases, not the 'sex by surprise' Assange charges involving situations that began consensually.

Indeed, the Swedish authorities -- who are now being depicted as global feminist sex-crime-avenger superheroes in blue capes -- were shamed by a 2008 Amnesty International report, "Case Closed", as being far more dismissive of rape, and far more insulting to rape victims who can be portrayed as 'asking for it' by drinking or any kind of sexual ambiguity -- than any other country in their comparison group. As Amnesty International put it in a blistering attack: "Swedish Rapists Get Impunity."

The same Swedish prosecutors who are now claiming custody of Julian Assange are, indeed, so shamefully negligent in prosecuting Swedish rapists who did not happen to embarrass the United States government that a woman who has been raped in Sweden is ten times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than she is of getting any kind of legal proceeding on her behalf undertaken by Swedish prosecutors.

Of all Swedish reported rapes (and remember this is rape, not "molestation"), fewer result in legal proceedings of any kind than do comparable cases in the US, Finland and Norway.

"Sweden needs to do much more to clamp down on rapists, according to reports from Amnesty International and the United Nations," Jennifer Heape reports for the website thelocal.se, which translates Swedish news for an English-speaking audience. Sweden tops European rape league, data showed in 2009, but "Sweden's image as an international forerunner in the fight for gender equality has been damaged by recent reports comparing rape statistics across various countries....''

The same prosecutors going after Assange for an ambiguous situation are doing worse in getting convictions today than they were forty-five years ago: "despite the number of rapes reported to the police quadrupling over the past 20 years, the percentage of reported rapes ending in conviction is markedly lower today than it was in 1965."

Sweden's horrific record in prosecuting all the accused rapists and men accused of sex crime in Sweden who are not Julian Assange drew consternation from as high up as the UN. UN rapporteur Yakin Ertürk warned in February 2007, that there is a shocking discrepancy "between the apparent progress in achieving gender equality and the reports of continued violence against women in the country."

The actual number of rapes in Sweden in 2006 was estimated to be close to 30,000, according to Swedish data compilation. This number indicates that Swedish women have so little faith in their own legal system that 85-90 percent do not bother reporting the crime to the same police who are ankle-braceleting Assange, as a 2007 study showed that only '5-10 percent of all rapes are reported to the police' -- a reporting rate lower than the US and the UK, which have reporting rates of about 13-30 percent, a shameful enough set of numbers in itself.

The statistical survey by the Swedish organization BRÅ showed that of that five or ten percent of rapes that resulted in reporting -- fewer than thirteen percent resulted in a police decision to start any legal proceedings at all. "The phenomenon of alleged offenses not formally being reported to the police or dropped before reaching court is termed 'attrition'," the report remarks sadly. "Amnesty slams the Swedish judicial system and the prevalence of attrition within it, concluding that, "in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity," Heape writes. In other words, 1.3 women in a thousand who is raped in Sweden will not receive any legal response whatsoever.

In the US and in Europe, male-dominated media discussions seem to portray the Assange charges as a victory of Swedish authorities over the old canard that "date rape" is not prosecuted because of a tendency to "blame the victim." But in fact, whenever they are not prosecuting Julian Assange, if you are raped on a date, Swedish police are unlikely to pursue your assailant. If the victim has been drinking, or behaving in a way that can be stigmatized as sexually provocative, no matter how clear-cut the rape charge, Swedish police typically leave such charges by the wayside. "In analyzing attrition and the failings of the police and judicial system, Case Closed draws attention to 'discriminatory attitudes about female and male sexuality...Young (drunk) women, in particular, have problems fulfilling the stereotypical role of the 'ideal victim', with the consequence that neither rapes within intimate relationships nor 'date rapes' involving teenage girls result in legal action," reports Heape.

"Helena Sutourius, an expert in legal proceedings in sexual offense cases, concludes that, in Sweden, 'the focus appears to be on the woman's behaviour, rather than on the act that is the object of the investigation.'" Swedish prosecutors and police don't even keep proper track of their own rape issue and how their own police handle or mishandle cases. Amnesty accused Sweden of little scrutiny of or research into the quality of its own rape crime investigations, "a serious shortcoming that needs to be addressed immediately."

Finally, remember that in the Assange case it is the State rather than the women themselves that is bringing the charges. The Swedish state -- which has proven, in politically neutral cases that merely involve actual assaults against women -- such a shameful custodian of raped victims' well-being.

And then, conclude: shame on Sweden; shame on Interpol; shame on Britain. And lasting shame, given this farcical hijacking of a sex crime law that is scarcely ever enforced in Sweden in far less ambiguous contexts, on the United States of America.

Naomi Wolf: Sweden's Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange's Arrest

here's a link to the amnesty international report that's at the center of the above:

Case closed: Rape and human rights in the Nordic countries: Summary report | Amnesty International

so...whaddya think is going on here?

the united states can't find a way to prosecute....they want to use the espionage act

A sad day for the US if the Espionage Act is used against WikiLeaks | Stephen M Kohn | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

but it isn't gonna work---the illusory "tight fit" that was "demonstrated" earlier by quoting the statute out of context was no more than that----unless they can "prove" collusion. which is the chimera they're after.

meanwhile the swedish charge is transparently a farce.

so we have a pathetic, delegitimating and wholly neurotic state apparatus doing exactly what the grand idea behind wikileaks predicted it would do.

it's so stupid as to defy belief.

debaser · 12-16-2010, 10:00 AM

roachboy,

Just because Sweden has a terrible track record prosecuting rapes (interesting articles, thanks) does not mean that the Assange trial is a farce. See it through to the end, then judge it.

The espionage laws cover Assange quite well. 798 even covers him if he had gotten the information from a foreign government. Of course he has to be tried in the US, which probably will never happen. Mr. Kohn seems to be confused about the Espionage Act on a number of points. Although he states that the information need not be classified, this is irrelevant, since it clearly was. He also states that PFC Manning is subject to the death penalty, but this would be prosecuted under § 2381 (Treason). I think he may be confusing the Espionage ACt with the Sedition Act, which was repealed before WW2.

Quote:

so we have a pathetic, delegitimating and wholly neurotic state apparatus doing exactly what the grand idea behind wikileaks predicted it would do.

So, tell me again what side of this issue you are on...

roachboy · 12-16-2010, 11:41 AM

ah....i see now that i posted the wrong link earlier about the us attempts to figure out grounds for prosecution. sorry about that...this one's better, i think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/wo....html?_r=1&hpw

stuff to do, more later...

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

glenn greenwald on this farce of a project by holder to cook up grounds for going after assange....

Getting to Assange through Manning - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

edit, later--->

an open letter from profs at the columbia school of journalism opposing any prosecution:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/...ulian-assange/

roachboy · 12-16-2010, 02:29 PM

WikiLeaks cables: Bradley Manning's health is deteriorating in jail, supporters claim | World news | The Guardian

this on bradley manning...

mrmacq · 12-16-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

When was the last time you were in Iraq son?

.

The average temperatures in Iraq range from higher than 48 degree C (120 Fahrenheit) in July and August to below freezing in January. A majority of the rainfall occurs from December through April and is more abundant in the mountainous region and may reach 100 centimeters

care to compare to texas?
dude?

or is that just another
"godforsaken shithole."

then somthin 'bout pumps

(got a few other states i could mention)

the point being
the attitude

or is it truly because its full of brown people?
"godforsaken shithole"

oh hold it
so is texas
you know
the original owners of that land?

loquitur · 12-17-2010, 07:35 AM

I wonder whether Assange can come up with a principled distinction that would make this wrong but his acts right: Exposed: The 'creepy, lovesick' emails WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange sent to 19-year-old girl student

Baraka_Guru · 12-17-2010, 07:45 AM

So what are we calling this now? The War of the Embarrassments?

filtherton · 12-17-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I wonder whether Assange can come up with a principled distinction that would make this wrong but his acts right: Exposed: The 'creepy, lovesick' emails WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange sent to 19-year-old girl student

This is such an odd tack to take. Yeah, Gawker sure showed that Julian Assange! How does he like it? Have some of your own medicine, leaker!

But wait! With the leaking of these emails, everyone is going to know that their emails aren't secure forever! THANKS TO THIS LEAK, NO ONE WILL EVER WANT TO SEND INFORMATION BY EMAIL FOR FEAR IT WILL BE PUBLISHED BY GAWKER!!!!! Gawker just ruined email forever!!!

Seriously, the focus on Assange here is telling. Whether he's grody or not is irrelevant.

SecretMethod70 · 12-17-2010, 08:26 AM

It's pathetic. And I don't mean his e-mails.

mixedmedia · 12-17-2010, 09:24 AM

sheesh. I mean, really, who gives a damn?

Baraka_Guru · 12-17-2010, 09:36 AM

Red herring'd!

debaser · 12-17-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmacq

The average temperatures in Iraq range from higher than 48 degree C (120 Fahrenheit) in July and August to below freezing in January. A majority of the rainfall occurs from December through April and is more abundant in the mountainous region and may reach 100 centimeters

care to compare to texas?
dude?

or is that just another
"godforsaken shithole."

then somthin 'bout pumps

(got a few other states i could mention)

the point being
the attitude

or is it truly because its full of brown people?
"godforsaken shithole"

oh hold it
so is texas
you know
the original owners of that land?

Sorry, I was too busy pressing my clan robe to read the entirety of your post. Care to sum it up for me? I have included a mad libs below to make it super easy for you.

"debaser, since you do not agree 100% with what I have to say, you are a __________________(racist, bigot, white supremacist, etc.)."

PS Since you are such hot shit on Wikipedia, how about googling agricultural yields for Texas vs. Iraq. Not that it really matters; you have completely missed the point of the post in question, which was to explain the classification process, and not to discuss the relative merits of Iraq and Texas.

silent_jay · 12-17-2010, 05:11 PM

........

loquitur · 12-20-2010, 10:22 AM

I don't think anyone gives a damn about Assange's peculiar mating habits. That wasn't the point. It's just that openness as a principle has its limits, and it looks like that limit has come home to roost in Assange's case.

I still think the rape prosecution is a joke, though.

roachboy · 12-20-2010, 10:30 AM

the campaign the destroy assange as a human being is transparently an attempt to undermine the credibility of wikileaks as if the two were the same, as if there was no collective involved with the action.

so it's not a matter of "openness having a limit" or "chickens coming home to roost"---it's a matter of there being several levels of response from the us "security" apparatus to a threat to it's modus operandus one of which is straight-forward sleazy character assassination.

loquitur · 12-20-2010, 02:56 PM

rb, I never thought I'd witness the spectacle of you, of all people, invoking separate entities as an argument point.

The issue is Assange's own stated public positions. Merely because Wikileaks has separate juridical existence doesn't mean his words stop having meaning.

Willravel · 12-20-2010, 04:30 PM

The problem is that it's a host of ad homs that totally distract from the issues. It's not honest to make the diplomatic cable leak discussion about Julian's character. You know that. Julian could be a goat-fucking albino Rastafarian, but both the leaks themselves and the response of those leaks would remain an incredibly serious issue worthy of honest discussion.

roachboy · 12-20-2010, 06:42 PM

loquitor---from what you've written, i dont see any evidence that you've read anything that assange has written....i dont see any evidence that you understand what assange and/or wikileaks understands openness to be about. you seem to confuse him with a whistle-blower of some kind. what wikileaks is about is smarter and more radical than that.

and that assange is not the whole of wikileaks is simply a fact. it's not so much a fact in the tactical context of character assasination. but that seems a line you want to pursue. so it makes sense that you'd prefer to pretend the opposite of the factual situation is the case. but that's really just a function of your tactical choices.

mixedmedia · 12-20-2010, 07:13 PM

Yes, who assange is and how he reacts personally to the airing of his own 'dirty skivvies' couldn't be any less relevant at this point. Wikileaks is about revolution, not scandal mongering. When you think about it that way, you see that the details of the material being leaked and who or what it spotlights isn't as important as the fact that it is being 'freed.'

loquitur · 12-21-2010, 09:48 AM

I actually have read some of what he has written, though I don't know that it would be the same things you are referring to. And no, I don't regard him as a whistleblower; he's more of a would-be revolutionary, one with technological savvy that he employs in the service of his revolution. But I infer from what I have read that an aversion to institutional secrecy of any kind, and especially that of a "hegemonic power" such as the US is central to his philosophy (he thinks that exposure of what the institutions want kept secret will bring about collapse or desuetude of the institutions). If that is his credo, and I believe it is, then it applies equally to institutions such as wikileaks and the people who think they should be making decisions about society as well -- people like Julian Assange. If he places himself in a position where he believes he has the right to make decisions that affect other people who didn't ask him to make those decisions for them, then he has in essence declared open season on himself. He doesn't have the right to make rules for others that he isn't willing to live by himself.

And again -- I still think the rape prosecution is a sham. It's an excuse to hold him until the powers that be can figure out what to charge him with. That's not how any government of laws is supposed to be operating -- not Sweden, not the UK, not the US.

roachboy · 12-21-2010, 10:15 AM

you've made this argument before, loquitor, and it puzzles me because it seems to militate for inertia, whether intentionally or not---couldn't you say the same of absolutely anyone, in any institutional context? couldn't you say the same of the state department functionaries who decide on the limits of what is and is not secret? who are they to decide? and the department of defense functionaries who do the same and who participate(d) in the covering-up of what are arguably war crimes? who are they? why should anonymous functionaries in semi-clandestine spaces be in a position to conceal information?

assange somewhere or another talked about the wikileaks collective as being modeled on the bourbaki collective of mathematicians in france, the people who tried to ground philosophy by way of set theory (a really interesting failure, btw)...he claimed that he made himself the face of wikileaks in order to cut down on the number of arbitrary claims from people who purport(ed) to represent the group. so i don't buy any of the character assassination attempts, nor do i buy their correlate, which is to try to discredit what wikileaks is doing by impugning assange's character. i don't think assange as a person is more than a spokesmodel for wikileaks, really.

and i don't think that the issue is state secrecy per se...it's the functioning of the oligarchy itself in secret below the public surfaces of the state, protected by the paranoid expansion of state secrets put into place by those lovely bush people. so it's the mode of operation of empire itself, it's administrative and political conditions of possibility. secrecy is just an instrument.

btw i think we agree about the swedish charges. it's good to agree about something, yes?

loquitur · 12-21-2010, 03:20 PM

I guess my distinction is that Assange wasn't elected, appointed or otherwise authorized to make these decisions. I have enough problems with bureaucrats and political appointees making these decisions, particularly given the institutional drivers toward ass-covering and empire-building by those in the agencies. But at least in those cases there is some discernible link back to the democratic process, even if it's tenuous. Egregious abuses or miscues that get publicized tend to cause some kinds of correction by the politicians whose asses are on the line. There are other institutional checks and balances as well, within the organization. It's not a perfect solution (not even a really good one) but it is what we have.

But it's totally different to have someone appoint himself, with no accountability, to make decisions for other people, particularly when he isn't willing to apply the same standards to himself. Julian Assange isn't subject to any institutional checks at all, and neither are the acolytes in his network. And frankly, if he isn't willing to have the likes of me make decisions about what sort of world he should be living in, I don't see why I should have to accept his dictates, either. Or those of his fellows. (I'm using him as the symbol, but my points apply equally to the faceless anonymous crowd behind him.)

And the alternative isn't inertia. For those who don't like the status quo there are plenty of avenues for trying to change it that don't involve appointing oneself as satrap over others. They might not be quite as satisfying for the ego, nor are they sufficient for the megalomaniacal, but petition drives, political fundraising, public interest litigation, opinion publishing, community involvement and myriad other activities are perfectly honorable ways to advance a cause. Of course that means one has to persuade, and that's not what Assange had in mind -- persuasion is grubby. No, he wanted to act unilaterally in accordance with his own vision, to bend reality to his will irrespective of what others think. And I'm sorry, but I don't find Julian Assange an appealing leader, nor do I see any reason to submit to Anonymous or whoever else is behind wikileaks. They are no more deserving of having their will imposed than I am. The difference is that I respect other people's wishes and I follow the rules.

Here's the acid test: if you accept self-appointed decisionmakers you agree with, are you prepared also to accept self-appointed decisionmakers you don't agree with? Because if you aren't, you don't have any recourse -- and that's not due to the disagreement, it's due to the self-appointment.

BTW, here is where this hero is living at the moment. Very countercultural of him.

Willravel · 12-21-2010, 05:46 PM

You griping about not electing Assange makes as much sense as me griping about how I never elected Rupert Murdoch or Bill Keller.

You've lost all perspective on this one. I suggest you take a step back and start over because you're entirely off base.

loquitur · 12-21-2010, 06:42 PM

If you think media titans have too much power I'll agree with you. But your position is that anarchy is fine as long as it's done by people you agree with. That, my friend, is way off base. I think you should step back and start over because you've lost all perspective.

Willravel · 12-21-2010, 07:23 PM

No one has said anything even remotely close to "anarchy is fine as long as it's done by people you agree with." What has happened is that a Sergent, I believe, leaked information to a news outlet, that media outlet is still processing that information, but the information they've gone through so far and have deemed to not put lives in danger or any such thing they've released themselves and with other members of the press. In no way is this even close to anarchy This is journalism. This is , at its very heart, about freedom of the press and the role of the press.

roachboy · 12-21-2010, 07:55 PM

loquitor--i am not sure that your point in the first post above really does apply to the collective that assange is a spokesmodel for, nor do i think that the claim about being-elected and being-accountable applies to most of the functionaries whose opinions and actions were outed in these leaks.

maybe the question is other than we've been talking about. maybe the differend (the place of talking past each other) lay with where each of us thinks actual power lay in an administrative apparatus, whether with the elected people who signal policy shifts or with the permanent functionaries who operate in the everyday context(s)....and whether it lay with the administrative apparatus itself or with the networks that the administrative apparatus is in the midst of...so what power is, really. i don't think the united states operates with the personified power that tv presents. i think almost everything about the electoral process is an illusion, not so much because of its mechanics, but rather because in i think we live in an oligarchy that's very much a class and patronage network affair, in exactly the way any other "third world" oligarchy works. and i think that the first step toward making anything approaching coherent statements about the world we live in is the recognition of what that world is. and i dont think that the people at wikileaks "Know" what's up and are trying to "teach us" fuck all---i think they're merely relaying the information and that it's up to us, out here in the world, to try to figure out what it means. the coalition of transnational media that they've assembled is non-trivial in this regard---i think that these folk are interested in speeding the end of nation-states. but i also think that anyone who seriously looks into the history of the disaster that's been the 20th century nation-state would also hope for it's demise. think about turkey just after world war one as a good example of what this nitwit notion of nation-state leads to--think about what it meant for the greek population that had lived there for something like 2000 years that all of a sudden found themselves ethnically undesirable because it advanced the reactionary cause of "nation"----we're still playing out the same stupid drama. nations are stupid and the faster that notion is imploded the better.

and i don't have a particular alternative. i think that's something to be fashioned. but it can't be fashioned until the problems of nation and nation-states are addressed. and that won't happen until people see what they are. and that won't happen without information. and i don't think the wikileaks business is enough: it's just a start....

but this is macro stuff. the micro stuff is above. it's time for a beverage.

mixedmedia · 12-22-2010, 04:04 AM

I am pretty sure that there are many, many self-appointed decision makers I don't agree with influencing my life every day, every day, every day - since the day I was born.

The avenues for change that you suggest are nostalgia-laden illusions. These avenues for change have been closed for a very long time.

From everything I've heard about the man, I don't think I like Julian Assange much. Personally, I think they made a mistake by letting him become the figurehead because it was obviously going to be very easy to smear him and thus, wikileaks, in the press. But for thoughtful folks the quality of his character is hardly the point. When we talk about wikileaks we are talking about a network of people, not one man. I'm not sure why you continue to conflate his personal character with the wikileaks organization as a whole. Seems kind of reactionary, which is odd coming from you, loquitor.

Baraka_Guru · 12-22-2010, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Red herring'd!

When did this thread become about Assange? Why?

filtherton · 12-22-2010, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

When did this thread become about Assange? Why?

Because the editors of People Magazine are responsible for political discourse in the US.

loquitur · 12-22-2010, 09:16 AM

Yeah, RB, I think you and I are proceeding from different premises, but they share this in common: we both think the country is run mainly by people who aren't accountable. We differ (I think) as to who those people are.

MM, I was using Assange as shorthand. I'm perfectly well aware he has a cadre behind him and plenty of followers.

Here's my question for the rest of you: if I believe deep in my heart, based on what I consider reliable information, that Reese Witherspoon is the lead scout for an alien invader army, does that mean I and my mass of minions can do whatever I want with her property and personal information if I deem it necessary to thwart her plans? And if not, why not? How is that different in principle from what this Anonymous army did, other than in its choice of target? Suppose it was the Venezuelan national petroleum company and the Venezuelan government that I targeted? Suppose it was Chinese dissidents? If I decided that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was dangerous and had to be exposed, would you feel differently about that?

If your reaction differs depending on who the choice of target is, then that tells me what I need to know.

mixedmedia · 12-22-2010, 09:33 AM

I support wikileaks and its aims. It doesn't mean I have to support any other entity and its actions. Why would you even suggest that I have to?

KirStang · 12-22-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

But it's totally different to have someone appoint himself, with no accountability, to make decisions for other people, particularly when he isn't willing to apply the same standards to himself. Julian Assange isn't subject to any institutional checks at all, and neither are the acolytes in his network. And frankly, if he isn't willing to have the likes of me make decisions about what sort of world he should be living in, I don't see why I should have to accept his dictates, either. Or those of his fellows. (I'm using him as the symbol, but my points apply equally to the faceless anonymous crowd behind him.)

And the alternative isn't inertia. For those who don't like the status quo there are plenty of avenues for trying to change it that don't involve appointing oneself as satrap over others. They might not be quite as satisfying for the ego, nor are they sufficient for the megalomaniacal, but petition drives, political fundraising, public interest litigation, opinion publishing, community involvement and myriad other activities are perfectly honorable ways to advance a cause. Of course that means one has to persuade, and that's not what Assange had in mind -- persuasion is grubby. No, he wanted to act unilaterally in accordance with his own vision, to bend reality to his will irrespective of what others think. And I'm sorry, but I don't find Julian Assange an appealing leader, nor do I see any reason to submit to Anonymous or whoever else is behind wikileaks. They are no more deserving of having their will imposed than I am. The difference is that I respect other people's wishes and I follow the rules.

Here's the acid test: if you accept self-appointed decisionmakers you agree with, are you prepared also to accept self-appointed decisionmakers you don't agree with? Because if you aren't, you don't have any recourse -- and that's not due to the disagreement, it's due to the self-appointment.

BTW, here is where this hero is living at the moment. Very countercultural of him.

You sir, are my hero. I think you distilled why I was uncomfortable with wikileaks, aside from the cost-benefit issue.

loquitur · 12-22-2010, 12:16 PM

MM I wasn't suggesting you HAVE to do anything. I was trying to get at the underlying principle that allows you to support Wikileaks's actions.

And thank you, KirStang, for your kind words.

TheCrimsonGhost · 12-22-2010, 01:12 PM

I heard today on KFI that these two women weren't even raped, the story now is that 1 of them, the one he wasn't staying with I guess, agreed to have sex with him but they had a disagreement over whether he should use a condom, and he agreed to, but then I guess ripped the tip of it or something like that, at least that is what she is claiming. And the other chick, the one he was staying with, I guess he had sex with her while she was sleeping, without a condom, while he knew she required condoms for sex (they must have been together previously, otherwise if she was asleep how does she tell him she requires condomage?).
So, I don't know how you turn either of those incidents into rape charges.... sounds fishy... haha... I said fishy.

Yeah, it all sounds like a smear campaign. With that said, I don't agree with what this man is doing, but I also don't agree with what everyone is doing in return.

mixedmedia · 12-22-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

MM I wasn't suggesting you HAVE to do anything. I was trying to get at the underlying principle that allows you to support Wikileaks's actions.

And thank you, KirStang, for your kind words.

How is the underlying principle of wikileaks similar to any of the scenarios or other organizations you mentioned? It sounds like you are equating the mechanics rather than the principles.

The_Jazz · 12-22-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Because the editors of People Magazine are responsible for political discourse in the US.

Filterton, I'll give you credit when I use that.

roachboy · 12-23-2010, 07:53 AM

Julian Assange Assails Fox News, Mike Huckabee, Palin On MSNBC (VIDEO)

interesting interview with assange about faux news, the american ultra-right's hysterical reaction to wikileaks and other things.

loquitur · 12-23-2010, 09:22 AM

MM, here is the common thread: I take it that the members of Wikileaks are neither better than I nor endowed with greater rights or intrinsic value. I further take it that, like me, they have not been vested by any genreally recognized institution with the authority to make decisions about how any aspect of society is to be run.

Therefore, given that they are in the precise same position as I am, and given that they apparently believe they and their allies are entitled to act on their judgments about proper social organizations, without regard to whether others agree with them, why am I not entitled to do precisely the same thing? Why can't I make judgments about my own preferences for social organization and then take matters into my own hands to implement them?

In principle, it makes no difference whether or not you agree with their goals -- the propriety of their actions can be evaluated independently of that. Just as it makes no difference if a murder victim was a lowlife, the murderer still should be punished.

The principle I was hoping you would enunciate was why you think it's ok for them to do what they do but it's not OK for me (or you, or the guy next door) to do the same thing.

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

yeah, Filtherton, that's a great line. Kudos.

roachboy · 12-23-2010, 09:30 AM

loquitor...it is ok. it's called political action. i would hope/expect that you articulate exactly what you were doing and why in a manner parallel to how wikileaks has done and submit the action to the public, as wikileaks has done, and submit the information you provided to public scrutiny, as wikileaks has done, and stake your credibility on the quality of the information, as wikileaks has done. the difference is that i doubt you'd come out of it as well as wikileaks has simply because your action would be derived from an intellectual exercise in making logical claims to counter other claims and not from any actual political engagement or commitment on your part.

because it is a political action, obviously the target matters, as do the motives as does the action itself.

mixedmedia · 12-23-2010, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

MM, here is the common thread: I take it that the members of Wikileaks are neither better than I nor endowed with greater rights or intrinsic value. I further take it that, like me, they have not been vested by any genreally recognized institution with the authority to make decisions about how any aspect of society is to be run.

Therefore, given that they are in the precise same position as I am, and given that they apparently believe they and their allies are entitled to act on their judgments about proper social organizations, without regard to whether others agree with them, why am I not entitled to do precisely the same thing? Why can't I make judgments about my own preferences for social organization and then take matters into my own hands to implement them?

In principle, it makes no difference whether or not you agree with their goals -- the propriety of their actions can be evaluated independently of that. Just as it makes no difference if a murder victim was a lowlife, the murderer still should be punished.

The principle I was hoping you would enunciate was why you think it's ok for them to do what they do but it's not OK for me (or you, or the guy next door) to do the same thing.

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

yeah, Filtherton, that's a great line. Kudos.

I didn't say that it wasn't 'ok' for anyone else to do it. I just don't have to agree with them. Just as I might support one act of civil disobedience and not another depending on the motivations. Since when has non-governmental, anti-establishment political activism not assumed authority against the wishes of people who disagree with them?

I don't think anyone here has been making the argument you suggest.

12-16-2010, 11:41 AM	#203 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ah....i see now that i posted the wrong link earlier about the us attempts to figure out grounds for prosecution. sorry about that...this one's better, i think: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/wo....html?_r=1&hpw stuff to do, more later... ---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ---------- glenn greenwald on this farce of a project by holder to cook up grounds for going after assange.... Getting to Assange through Manning - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com edit, later---> an open letter from profs at the columbia school of journalism opposing any prosecution: http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/...ulian-assange/ __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-16-2010 at 12:00 PM..

12-16-2010, 02:29 PM	#204 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	WikiLeaks cables: Bradley Manning's health is deteriorating in jail, supporters claim \| World news \| The Guardian this on bradley manning... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-17-2010, 07:45 AM	#207 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	So what are we calling this now? The War of the Embarrassments? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-17-2010, 08:26 AM	#209 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	It's pathetic. And I don't mean his e-mails. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-17-2010, 09:24 AM	#210 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	sheesh. I mean, really, who gives a damn? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-17-2010, 07:35 AM	#206 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I wonder whether Assange can come up with a principled distinction that would make this wrong but his acts right: Exposed: The 'creepy, lovesick' emails WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange sent to 19-year-old girl student

12-17-2010, 09:36 AM	#211 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Red herring'd! __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-17-2010, 05:11 PM	#213 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	........ Last edited by silent_jay; 12-17-2010 at 06:12 PM.. Reason: Can't be bothered to partake in the shennanigans and tomfoolery

12-20-2010, 10:22 AM	#214 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I don't think anyone gives a damn about Assange's peculiar mating habits. That wasn't the point. It's just that openness as a principle has its limits, and it looks like that limit has come home to roost in Assange's case. I still think the rape prosecution is a joke, though.

12-20-2010, 10:30 AM	#215 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the campaign the destroy assange as a human being is transparently an attempt to undermine the credibility of wikileaks as if the two were the same, as if there was no collective involved with the action. so it's not a matter of "openness having a limit" or "chickens coming home to roost"---it's a matter of there being several levels of response from the us "security" apparatus to a threat to it's modus operandus one of which is straight-forward sleazy character assassination. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-20-2010, 02:56 PM	#216 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	rb, I never thought I'd witness the spectacle of you, of all people, invoking separate entities as an argument point. The issue is Assange's own stated public positions. Merely because Wikileaks has separate juridical existence doesn't mean his words stop having meaning.

12-20-2010, 04:30 PM	#217 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The problem is that it's a host of ad homs that totally distract from the issues. It's not honest to make the diplomatic cable leak discussion about Julian's character. You know that. Julian could be a goat-fucking albino Rastafarian, but both the leaks themselves and the response of those leaks would remain an incredibly serious issue worthy of honest discussion.

12-20-2010, 06:42 PM	#218 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor---from what you've written, i dont see any evidence that you've read anything that assange has written....i dont see any evidence that you understand what assange and/or wikileaks understands openness to be about. you seem to confuse him with a whistle-blower of some kind. what wikileaks is about is smarter and more radical than that. and that assange is not the whole of wikileaks is simply a fact. it's not so much a fact in the tactical context of character assasination. but that seems a line you want to pursue. so it makes sense that you'd prefer to pretend the opposite of the factual situation is the case. but that's really just a function of your tactical choices. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-20-2010 at 07:38 PM..

12-20-2010, 07:13 PM	#219 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Yes, who assange is and how he reacts personally to the airing of his own 'dirty skivvies' couldn't be any less relevant at this point. Wikileaks is about revolution, not scandal mongering. When you think about it that way, you see that the details of the material being leaked and who or what it spotlights isn't as important as the fact that it is being 'freed.' __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-21-2010, 09:48 AM	#220 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I actually have read some of what he has written, though I don't know that it would be the same things you are referring to. And no, I don't regard him as a whistleblower; he's more of a would-be revolutionary, one with technological savvy that he employs in the service of his revolution. But I infer from what I have read that an aversion to institutional secrecy of any kind, and especially that of a "hegemonic power" such as the US is central to his philosophy (he thinks that exposure of what the institutions want kept secret will bring about collapse or desuetude of the institutions). If that is his credo, and I believe it is, then it applies equally to institutions such as wikileaks and the people who think they should be making decisions about society as well -- people like Julian Assange. If he places himself in a position where he believes he has the right to make decisions that affect other people who didn't ask him to make those decisions for them, then he has in essence declared open season on himself. He doesn't have the right to make rules for others that he isn't willing to live by himself. And again -- I still think the rape prosecution is a sham. It's an excuse to hold him until the powers that be can figure out what to charge him with. That's not how any government of laws is supposed to be operating -- not Sweden, not the UK, not the US. Last edited by loquitur; 12-21-2010 at 10:00 AM..

12-21-2010, 10:15 AM	#221 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you've made this argument before, loquitor, and it puzzles me because it seems to militate for inertia, whether intentionally or not---couldn't you say the same of absolutely anyone, in any institutional context? couldn't you say the same of the state department functionaries who decide on the limits of what is and is not secret? who are they to decide? and the department of defense functionaries who do the same and who participate(d) in the covering-up of what are arguably war crimes? who are they? why should anonymous functionaries in semi-clandestine spaces be in a position to conceal information? assange somewhere or another talked about the wikileaks collective as being modeled on the bourbaki collective of mathematicians in france, the people who tried to ground philosophy by way of set theory (a really interesting failure, btw)...he claimed that he made himself the face of wikileaks in order to cut down on the number of arbitrary claims from people who purport(ed) to represent the group. so i don't buy any of the character assassination attempts, nor do i buy their correlate, which is to try to discredit what wikileaks is doing by impugning assange's character. i don't think assange as a person is more than a spokesmodel for wikileaks, really. and i don't think that the issue is state secrecy per se...it's the functioning of the oligarchy itself in secret below the public surfaces of the state, protected by the paranoid expansion of state secrets put into place by those lovely bush people. so it's the mode of operation of empire itself, it's administrative and political conditions of possibility. secrecy is just an instrument. btw i think we agree about the swedish charges. it's good to agree about something, yes? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-21-2010, 03:20 PM	#222 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I guess my distinction is that Assange wasn't elected, appointed or otherwise authorized to make these decisions. I have enough problems with bureaucrats and political appointees making these decisions, particularly given the institutional drivers toward ass-covering and empire-building by those in the agencies. But at least in those cases there is some discernible link back to the democratic process, even if it's tenuous. Egregious abuses or miscues that get publicized tend to cause some kinds of correction by the politicians whose asses are on the line. There are other institutional checks and balances as well, within the organization. It's not a perfect solution (not even a really good one) but it is what we have. But it's totally different to have someone appoint himself, with no accountability, to make decisions for other people, particularly when he isn't willing to apply the same standards to himself. Julian Assange isn't subject to any institutional checks at all, and neither are the acolytes in his network. And frankly, if he isn't willing to have the likes of me make decisions about what sort of world he should be living in, I don't see why I should have to accept his dictates, either. Or those of his fellows. (I'm using him as the symbol, but my points apply equally to the faceless anonymous crowd behind him.) And the alternative isn't inertia. For those who don't like the status quo there are plenty of avenues for trying to change it that don't involve appointing oneself as satrap over others. They might not be quite as satisfying for the ego, nor are they sufficient for the megalomaniacal, but petition drives, political fundraising, public interest litigation, opinion publishing, community involvement and myriad other activities are perfectly honorable ways to advance a cause. Of course that means one has to persuade, and that's not what Assange had in mind -- persuasion is grubby. No, he wanted to act unilaterally in accordance with his own vision, to bend reality to his will irrespective of what others think. And I'm sorry, but I don't find Julian Assange an appealing leader, nor do I see any reason to submit to Anonymous or whoever else is behind wikileaks. They are no more deserving of having their will imposed than I am. The difference is that I respect other people's wishes and I follow the rules. Here's the acid test: if you accept self-appointed decisionmakers you agree with, are you prepared also to accept self-appointed decisionmakers you don't agree with? Because if you aren't, you don't have any recourse -- and that's not due to the disagreement, it's due to the self-appointment. BTW, here is where this hero is living at the moment. Very countercultural of him. Last edited by loquitur; 12-21-2010 at 03:32 PM..

12-21-2010, 05:46 PM	#223 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You griping about not electing Assange makes as much sense as me griping about how I never elected Rupert Murdoch or Bill Keller. You've lost all perspective on this one. I suggest you take a step back and start over because you're entirely off base.

12-21-2010, 06:42 PM	#224 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	If you think media titans have too much power I'll agree with you. But your position is that anarchy is fine as long as it's done by people you agree with. That, my friend, is way off base. I think you should step back and start over because you've lost all perspective.

12-21-2010, 07:23 PM	#225 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	No one has said anything even remotely close to "anarchy is fine as long as it's done by people you agree with." What has happened is that a Sergent, I believe, leaked information to a news outlet, that media outlet is still processing that information, but the information they've gone through so far and have deemed to not put lives in danger or any such thing they've released themselves and with other members of the press. In no way is this even close to anarchy This is journalism. This is , at its very heart, about freedom of the press and the role of the press.

12-21-2010, 07:55 PM	#226 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor--i am not sure that your point in the first post above really does apply to the collective that assange is a spokesmodel for, nor do i think that the claim about being-elected and being-accountable applies to most of the functionaries whose opinions and actions were outed in these leaks. maybe the question is other than we've been talking about. maybe the differend (the place of talking past each other) lay with where each of us thinks actual power lay in an administrative apparatus, whether with the elected people who signal policy shifts or with the permanent functionaries who operate in the everyday context(s)....and whether it lay with the administrative apparatus itself or with the networks that the administrative apparatus is in the midst of...so what power is, really. i don't think the united states operates with the personified power that tv presents. i think almost everything about the electoral process is an illusion, not so much because of its mechanics, but rather because in i think we live in an oligarchy that's very much a class and patronage network affair, in exactly the way any other "third world" oligarchy works. and i think that the first step toward making anything approaching coherent statements about the world we live in is the recognition of what that world is. and i dont think that the people at wikileaks "Know" what's up and are trying to "teach us" fuck all---i think they're merely relaying the information and that it's up to us, out here in the world, to try to figure out what it means. the coalition of transnational media that they've assembled is non-trivial in this regard---i think that these folk are interested in speeding the end of nation-states. but i also think that anyone who seriously looks into the history of the disaster that's been the 20th century nation-state would also hope for it's demise. think about turkey just after world war one as a good example of what this nitwit notion of nation-state leads to--think about what it meant for the greek population that had lived there for something like 2000 years that all of a sudden found themselves ethnically undesirable because it advanced the reactionary cause of "nation"----we're still playing out the same stupid drama. nations are stupid and the faster that notion is imploded the better. and i don't have a particular alternative. i think that's something to be fashioned. but it can't be fashioned until the problems of nation and nation-states are addressed. and that won't happen until people see what they are. and that won't happen without information. and i don't think the wikileaks business is enough: it's just a start.... but this is macro stuff. the micro stuff is above. it's time for a beverage. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-22-2010, 04:04 AM	#227 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I am pretty sure that there are many, many self-appointed decision makers I don't agree with influencing my life every day, every day, every day - since the day I was born. The avenues for change that you suggest are nostalgia-laden illusions. These avenues for change have been closed for a very long time. From everything I've heard about the man, I don't think I like Julian Assange much. Personally, I think they made a mistake by letting him become the figurehead because it was obviously going to be very easy to smear him and thus, wikileaks, in the press. But for thoughtful folks the quality of his character is hardly the point. When we talk about wikileaks we are talking about a network of people, not one man. I'm not sure why you continue to conflate his personal character with the wikileaks organization as a whole. Seems kind of reactionary, which is odd coming from you, loquitor. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-22-2010, 09:16 AM	#230 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Yeah, RB, I think you and I are proceeding from different premises, but they share this in common: we both think the country is run mainly by people who aren't accountable. We differ (I think) as to who those people are. MM, I was using Assange as shorthand. I'm perfectly well aware he has a cadre behind him and plenty of followers. Here's my question for the rest of you: if I believe deep in my heart, based on what I consider reliable information, that Reese Witherspoon is the lead scout for an alien invader army, does that mean I and my mass of minions can do whatever I want with her property and personal information if I deem it necessary to thwart her plans? And if not, why not? How is that different in principle from what this Anonymous army did, other than in its choice of target? Suppose it was the Venezuelan national petroleum company and the Venezuelan government that I targeted? Suppose it was Chinese dissidents? If I decided that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was dangerous and had to be exposed, would you feel differently about that? If your reaction differs depending on who the choice of target is, then that tells me what I need to know.

12-22-2010, 09:33 AM	#231 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I support wikileaks and its aims. It doesn't mean I have to support any other entity and its actions. Why would you even suggest that I have to? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-22-2010, 12:16 PM	#233 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	MM I wasn't suggesting you HAVE to do anything. I was trying to get at the underlying principle that allows you to support Wikileaks's actions. And thank you, KirStang, for your kind words. Last edited by loquitur; 12-22-2010 at 12:29 PM..

12-22-2010, 01:12 PM	#234 (permalink)
TheCrimsonGhost Upright Location: Los Angeles, CA	I heard today on KFI that these two women weren't even raped, the story now is that 1 of them, the one he wasn't staying with I guess, agreed to have sex with him but they had a disagreement over whether he should use a condom, and he agreed to, but then I guess ripped the tip of it or something like that, at least that is what she is claiming. And the other chick, the one he was staying with, I guess he had sex with her while she was sleeping, without a condom, while he knew she required condoms for sex (they must have been together previously, otherwise if she was asleep how does she tell him she requires condomage?). So, I don't know how you turn either of those incidents into rape charges.... sounds fishy... haha... I said fishy. Yeah, it all sounds like a smear campaign. With that said, I don't agree with what this man is doing, but I also don't agree with what everyone is doing in return.

12-23-2010, 07:53 AM	#237 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	Julian Assange Assails Fox News, Mike Huckabee, Palin On MSNBC (VIDEO) interesting interview with assange about faux news, the american ultra-right's hysterical reaction to wikileaks and other things. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-23-2010, 09:22 AM	#238 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	MM, here is the common thread: I take it that the members of Wikileaks are neither better than I nor endowed with greater rights or intrinsic value. I further take it that, like me, they have not been vested by any genreally recognized institution with the authority to make decisions about how any aspect of society is to be run. Therefore, given that they are in the precise same position as I am, and given that they apparently believe they and their allies are entitled to act on their judgments about proper social organizations, without regard to whether others agree with them, why am I not entitled to do precisely the same thing? Why can't I make judgments about my own preferences for social organization and then take matters into my own hands to implement them? In principle, it makes no difference whether or not you agree with their goals -- the propriety of their actions can be evaluated independently of that. Just as it makes no difference if a murder victim was a lowlife, the murderer still should be punished. The principle I was hoping you would enunciate was why you think it's ok for them to do what they do but it's not OK for me (or you, or the guy next door) to do the same thing. ---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ---------- yeah, Filtherton, that's a great line. Kudos.

12-23-2010, 09:30 AM	#239 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor...it is ok. it's called political action. i would hope/expect that you articulate exactly what you were doing and why in a manner parallel to how wikileaks has done and submit the action to the public, as wikileaks has done, and submit the information you provided to public scrutiny, as wikileaks has done, and stake your credibility on the quality of the information, as wikileaks has done. the difference is that i doubt you'd come out of it as well as wikileaks has simply because your action would be derived from an intellectual exercise in making logical claims to counter other claims and not from any actual political engagement or commitment on your part. because it is a political action, obviously the target matters, as do the motives as does the action itself. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite