wikileaks: the diplomacy dump. - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 12-07-2010, 02:32 PM

For the record:

Quote:

WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has. Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, the NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.). Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm.

Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com)

ASU2003 · 12-07-2010, 06:25 PM

What is in the torrent file then? Is it just the 960, or all 250k?

If the media can only report on just a few things, and doesn't want to or doesn't care to make the connections, then it's not their fault for being slow.

glasscutter43 · 12-07-2010, 10:00 PM

If any of the cables released by Assange save the US government any money, Assange might qualify for a reward of 10% of any savings under the US goverment's own "Whistleblower" program. Kind of ironic.

dksuddeth · 12-08-2010, 08:42 AM

A while back, I made a comment about freedom of the press being severely restricted to 'authorized journalists' in a thread i'm sure that somewhere I was probably cop bashing. In that thread, someone scoffed at the notion that this could possibly happen. Well, it may soon become reality if Holder has his way.

An Assange prosecution would raise 1st Amendment issues | McClatchy

Quote:

top Obama administration officials are considering filing an extradition request with Sweden to have WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange face criminal charges, possibly for espionage.

Any such proceedings would set up a test of whether the First Amendment's protection for a free press extends to a website with a worldwide audience.

loquitur · 12-08-2010, 10:45 AM

This rape business with Assange is ridiculous. One of the reasons I detest broad criminal laws is that if the authorities are out to get you they can always find something to charge you with. So now with Assange it's apparently fucking without a condom. Bloody ridiculous. If they can't charge him with illegally stealing other people's data, which is what he and his confederates did which is so objectionable, then they should leave him free.

I remember that back in law school, when I took my criminal law course, it struck me that the laws are written so broadly that everyone is a criminal -- the only thing that saves most of us is the good sense of prosecutors and the limited resources allocated to law enforcement. But the problem with giving government agents discretion is that it's really easy for them to abuse it.

I take the rule of law very very seriously. There is little that is worse than governmental lawlessness or standardless discretion. That is, simply put, tyranny.

Wes Mantooth · 12-08-2010, 10:59 AM

Yup I agree, either the fellow broke the law and can be charged or he didn't. Simply finding ANYTHING they can think of to throw at him to make a point or just "get him off the street" is sad and quite frankly making a mockery out of the law.

Absurd.

dlish · 12-08-2010, 11:10 AM

Loq - but he didnt break the law. someone else within the US government breached that trust and passed the information onto wikileaks.

so really, Assange has done absolutely nothing illegal, probably cant be charged, or wont be charged unless they come up with a retrospective law to pin him to. hes an aussie that lived in sweden who recieved documents from someone who stole them from the US government. we can speak about whether something is morally right or morally wrong, but essentially, if he hasnt broken the law then he should be free.

roachboy · 12-08-2010, 11:29 AM

as the details of this charge have surfaced, it's strained credulity...even as it is apparently the law in sweden that a broken condom can result in a rape charge in the context of consensual sex. why that would be the case, i've no idea--not an expert on swedish law by any means.

there has been some information floating about that's labels assange's accuser as someone who's been involved with anti-castro groups etc. but i've no idea how credible it is so haven't put anything here or relayed it elsewhere.

this feels like a put-up job, frankly, as it does to alot of people. beyond that, i agree with loquitor, above.

this is an interesting take, from political scientist henry farrell

Quote:

State power and the response to Wikileaks

The US response to Wikileaks has been an interesting illustration of both the limits and extent of state power in an age of transnational information flows. The problem for the US has been quite straightforward. The Internet makes it more difficult for states (even powerful ones such as the US) to control information flows across their own borders and others. It is much easier than it used to be for actors to hop jurisdictions by e.g. moving a particular Internet based service from one country to another, while still making it possible for people across many countries to access the service. This makes it much harder for the US and other actors to use the traditional tools of statecraft - their jurisdiction does not extend far enough to stop the actors who they would like to stop.

However, there is a set of tools that states can use to greater effect. The Internet and other networks provide some private actors with a great deal of effective transnational power. Banks that operate across multiple jurisdictions can shape financial flows between these jurisdictions. Information companies may be able to reshape flows of information in ways that advantage or disadvantage particular actors. These private actors are often large, relatively immobile, and partially dependent on state approval for their actions. They thus provide a crucial resource for states. Even if states cannot directly regulate small agile actors outside their jurisdiction, they can indirectly regulate them by pressganging big private actors with cross-jurisdictional reach. A few years ago, the US found itself unable to regulate Internet gambling firms which were based in Antigua and selling their services to US customers. But the US was able to tell its banks that they would suffer legal and political consequences if they allowed transactions between US customers and Antiguan gambling firms, helping to drive the latter out of existence.

This is the topic of my least cited article evah (PDF), where I argue that:

states are not limited to direct regulation; they can use indirect means, pressing Internet service providers (ISPs) or other actors to implement state policy. For example, states might require ISPs to block their users from having access to a particular site, or to take down sites with certain kinds of content. More generally ... a small group of privileged private actors can become "points of control"--states can use them to exert control over a much broader group of other private actors. This is because the former private actors control chokepoints in the information infrastructure or in other key networks of resources. They can block or control flows of data or of other valuable resources among a wide variety of other private actors. Thus, it is not always necessary for a state to exercise direct control over all the relevant private actors in a given issue area in order to be a successful regulator.

And this is exactly what the US is doing in response to Wikileaks. US political pressure caused Amazon to stop hosting Wikileaks, EveryDNS to break Wikileaks.org's domain name, eBay/Paypal to stop facilitating financial transactions, Swiss Post to freeze a Wikileaks bank account (in perhaps the first instance in recorded history of a Swiss bank taking residency requirements seriously), and Mastercard and Visa to cease relations with it. This is unlikely to affect the availability of the information that Wikileaks has already leaked. But it may plausibly affect the medium and long run viability of Wikileaks as an organization. This will be a very interesting battle to watch

The Monkey Cage: State power and the response to Wikileaks

cite from here:
WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

i'm also quite interested in operation payback, but havent the time at the moment to make a post about it. anyone else following this?

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

and this is a press release in support of wikileaks signed by daniel ellsberg, among others. strong stuff:

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)

mixedmedia · 12-08-2010, 11:30 AM

The article that smeth posted last week revealed a little more detail about the rape charges. They primarily extend from an encounter with a woman that weekend with whom he was having sex without a condom. She claims that she asked him to stop when she realized he wasn't wearing one and he didn't...or something. It's not clear.

The incident with the broken condom occurred with another woman and an acquaintance of the woman above. After that weekend, the 'no condom' woman decided to go to the police and the 'broken condom' woman went with her to lend support, not intending to press charges but related her story and, it's unclear how, ended up pressing charges as well.

It's all very puzzling and confusing. But not quite as simple as 'his condom broke.'

One thing it is safe to conclude, Mssr. Assange likes to get biz-ay with the lay-lay.

dlish · 12-08-2010, 11:39 AM

from what ive read the two women coincidentally met when one of them called his office asking for him because he said he'd call. one of them was working in his office temporarily. thats when they realised they had met before and that he'd been chopping them both in the space of a few days.

smells like a case of a woman (women?) scorned.

mixedmedia · 12-08-2010, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

from what ive read the two women coincidentally met when one of them called his office asking for him because he said he'd call. one of them was working in his office temporarily. thats when they realised they had met before and that he'd been chopping them both in the space of a few days.

smells like a case of a woman (women?) scorned.

It could be.

From what I understand, though, the most he would face if found guilty was a fine. So I've been a little mystified as to why he would go to so much trouble to avoid arrest considering what's at stake.

Cimarron29414 · 12-08-2010, 12:31 PM

MM-

I believe his fear is that, once arrested in Sweden, he would be turned over to U.S. authorities - as there is an extradition treaty in place. This being premised on the U.S. actually pressing charges against him.

mixedmedia · 12-08-2010, 12:35 PM

yes, I can understand that.
Even though it seems unlikely from my perspective, it must be a looming possibility from his.

Cimarron29414 · 12-08-2010, 12:42 PM

There is supporting evidence that the U.S. has retained people without charges or trial.

While I seriously doubt Sweden would just hand him over...

mixedmedia · 12-08-2010, 12:56 PM

uh, yeah.

I get the feeling there is a lot that we don't know about this particular situation.

debaser · 12-08-2010, 01:21 PM

Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished.

I am all for greater transparency in government, but I also realize that for our national interests to be served there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in diplomatic communications. There are second and third order effects of revealing this information, and I do not trust an anarchist egomaniac to properly decipher what those are, or act accordingly if he did. This is not a case of whistleblowing, this is simply the dumping of raw information with absolutely no context or prior greivance.

ring · 12-08-2010, 01:38 PM

roachboy writes:

"i'm also quite interested in operation payback, but havent the time at the moment to make a post about it. anyone else following this?"

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz17YbEND6m

I've been reading about what they are doing.
I know very little about computers & the language & nothing about hacking.
This type of disruption is very effective & I my lack of computer knowledge brain wonders why it hasn't been used more often.

It's a bit overwhelming. Computers go down & transactions halt.
At the grocery store & bank -during a recent power outage,
the clerks stood blinking & foundered. "Uhh, you'll just have to come back later."

Quite the revolutionary tool that I'm surprised hasn't been used sooner.

Cimarron29414 · 12-08-2010, 01:41 PM

debaser,

The link to the statute was very helpful. Thank you.

roachboy · 12-08-2010, 01:48 PM

it may be helpful but the fact is that it's not obvious that the statute applies.
this is not a clear-cut situation.
but read on:

Quote:

U.S. Prosecutors Study WikiLeaks Prosecution
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department, in considering whether and how it might indict Julian Assange, is looking beyond the Espionage Act of 1917 to other possible offenses, including conspiracy or trafficking in stolen property, according to officials familiar with the investigation.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. acknowledged this week that there were problems with the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law that says the unauthorized possession and dissemination of information related to national defense is illegal. But he also hinted that prosecutors were looking at other statutes with regard to Mr. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

“I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,” Mr. Holder said Monday at a news conference. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.”

Last week, The New York Times and four other news organizations began carrying articles based on an archive of a quarter-million confidential State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to them. After WikiLeaks released a batch of government documents concerning Iraq and Afghanistan in July, Mr. Holder and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, both said the leaks were being investigated, and Mr. Assange said United States officials had previously warned his organization that there had been “thoughts of whether I could be charged as a co-conspirator to espionage, which is serious.”

Mr. Assange was arrested Tuesday in Britain in connection with a Swedish investigation into accusations of sexual offenses. But United States law enforcement officials said the fact that he was in custody did not affect their deliberations about whether he might be charged in this country in connection with the publication of leaked government documents.

Prosecutors have used the Espionage Act to convict officials who leaked classified information. They have never successfully convicted any leak recipient who then passed the information along, however, and the Justice Department has never tried to prosecute a journalist —which Mr. Assange portrays himself as being — under either a Republican or a Democratic administration.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said Tuesday on Fox News that he believed The Times should be investigated alongside WikiLeaks, although he cautioned, “This is very sensitive stuff because it gets into the America’s First Amendment.”

“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.”

A government official familiar with the investigation said that treating WikiLeaks different from newspapers might be facilitated if investigators found any evidence that Mr. Assange aided the leaker, who is believed to be a low-level Army intelligence analyst — for example, by directing him to look for certain things and providing technological assistance.

If Mr. Assange did collaborate in the original disclosure, then prosecutors could charge him with conspiracy in the underlying leak, skirting the question of whether the subsequent publication of the documents constituted a separate criminal offense. But while investigators have looked for such evidence, there is no public sign suggesting that they have found any.

Meanwhile, according to another government official familiar with the investigation, Justice Department officials have also examined whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks could be charged with trafficking in stolen government property.

But scholars say there might be legal difficulties with that approach, too, because the leaked documents are reproductions of files the government still possesses, not physical objects missing from its file cabinets. That means they are covered by intellectual property law, not ordinary property law.

“This is less about stealing than it is about copying,” said John G. Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in Internet issues and intellectual property.

Intellectual property law criminalizes the unauthorized reproduction of certain kinds of commercial information, like trade secrets or copyrighted music, films and software files. But those categories do not appear to cover government documents, which by law cannot be copyrighted and for which there is no ordinary commercial market.

Mr. Assange has received leaks of private-sector information as well. He has indicated, for example, that his next step might be to publish a copy of the contents of a hard drive belonging to an executive at a bank — apparently, Bank of America.

If he does so, some of the problems associated with trying to find a way to prosecute him for distributing leaked government documents could disappear. The works of a person in the private sector are automatically copyrighted, and bank documents could be deemed trade secrets.

“If you had large-scale dissemination of a private-sector company’s records, there might be some kind of argument there similar to commercial espionage,” said James Boyle, a Duke University law professor who specializes in intellectual property and public-domain issues.

There would still be obstacles. For example, Mr. Assange could claim that his distribution of the files was allowable under the “fair use” exception to copyright law and that it was not for financial gain. Still, “fair use” does not allow wholesale reproduction, and prosecutors could argue that his organization was raising money from its activities.

Even so, Mr. Boyle cautioned, intellectual property law is not well designed to prosecute what WikiLeaks is doing.

“The reason people are upset about this is not about commercial theft or misusing the fabulous original expressions of U.S. diplomats,” Mr. Boyle said. “I think it is the wrong tool. You go after Al Capone for tax evasion rather than bootlegging — fine. But this is a bridge too far.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html

further, i think that the political damage that would happen as a function of making a martyr of assange far outweighs any imaginable benefit:

Quote:

The World from Berlin
Assange's 'Martyr Status' Further Damages US Reputation

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in London and denied bail on charges of rape and sexual molestation. German opinion makers are split on what the arrest really means. One thing they agree on: The reputation of the US continues to suffer.

The London arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made headlines in all of the major German newspapers Wednesday, with several noting how welcomed the arrest was in the United States, and editorialists discussing what freedom of information means in the world's last remaining superpower.

Assange, who turned himself over to Scotland Yard authorities on Tuesday morning, was denied bail by the British judge overseeing the case. He has been accused in Sweden of one count of rape, one count of unlawful coercion and two counts of sexual molestation, involving incidents which allegedly occured in August 2010. The Swedish public prosecutor's office had issued a European warrant to bring Assange in for questioning.

The arrest came as Assange, the 39-year-old WikiLeaks founder, faced increasing pressure from all corners of the world -- Sweden, the United States, and even his home nation, Australia -- following the stream of secret US diplomatic leaks that have been published by his website and several major news organizations, including SPIEGEL.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters in Afghanistan Tuesday that Assange's arrest: "Sounds like good news to me." Several prominent US politicians had been calling for his arrest, and former Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said he should be tracked down and hunted like Osama bin Laden. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said that Assange's publication of the US diplomatic cables on his website was illegal.

In his response published Wednesday in the daily The Australian, Assange calls organization the "underdog" and writes: "Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organizations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small."

He also writes that the Australian government is "trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings."

Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said that Assange would get consular support in Britain, and told The Australian: "What we do with Australians in strife anywhere in the world is that we take the view that our responsibility is to ensure the consular rights and legal rights of all Australians abroad are protected. And that includes Mr. Assange."

WikiLeaks spokesman, Kristinn Hrafnsson, wrote on Twitter: "We will not be gagged, either by judicial action or corporate censorship."

The Agence France Presse agency reported Wednesday that Assange supporters hacked into the e-mail system of the Swedish public prosecutor's office in response to his arrest.

Some well-known US politicians are now casting the net wider. "To me the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department," US Senator Joe Lieberman told Fox News.

Meanwhile, the German newspapers were split on what Assange's arrest really meant -- a case of Swedish justice, or a convenient way to silence him. Some questioned how a country that long valued freedom of information could now stand against it. The damage done to the reputation of the United States just continues, they say.

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"The reputation of the United States has been damaged by the WikiLeaks-controlled release of secret documents. That is true… But the United States' reputation is being damaged much more right now as they attempt -- with all of their means -- to muzzle WikiLeaks and its head, Julian Assange. By doing so, the US is betraying one of its founding myths: Freedom of information. And they are doing so now, because for the first time since the end of the Cold War, they are threatened with losing worldwide control of information."

"'The first real information war has begun,' writes US civil rights activist John-Perry Barlow. 'The battlefield is WikiLeaks.' He is right. With the doctrine 'Free Flow of Information' the US has dominated the flow of information and most of its content for decades. They said that every person had the right, everywhere, and without limitations, to collect information and to broadcast and disseminate it. That was a tremendous doctrine, as long as only American companies had the power, the means, and the logisitical capabilities, to make use of this freedom. That changed somewhat with the Internet, but companies like Apple, Windows, Google, Facebook and Amazon advance US-domination in the supposedly democratic Internet. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the first who have used the power of the Internet against the United States. That is why they are being mercilessly pursued. That is why the government is betraying one of the principles of democracy."

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"The Swedish public prosecutor's office merely wants to question the Australian Assange about the serious accusations that have been made about him. So far, Assange has balked at this explanation of the facts. His supporters sense that the fix is in, and that the rape charges have been faked to harm the WikiLeaks project."

"If that were true, both of the Swedes, who Assange doesn't deny knowing, and the Swedish prosecutor must be following a secret agenda dictated to them by the United States. Until now, there has not been a single form of proof for that, to make one take it seriously. In Sweden, it is explicitly not about the political damage that the WikiLeaks-activist has caused."

"Obviously, he assumed that the elasticity of law and order in the Internet also applies to real life. But that is where he was wrong. His arrest is proof that in real life the rule of law can have harsher consequences. Even still."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The arrest is as potentially scandalous and it is superfluous. The operation has produced a martyr, and he has asked if it is all really about the legally offered explanation of the rape charges. Or, if instead it is more about getting a man out of the way, who, in the opinion of numerous US politicians, is Public Enemy No.1."

"And that is the case, even though no one can explain what crimes Assange allegedly committed with the publication of the secret documents, or why publication by WikiLeaks was an offense, and in the New York Times, it was not."

"The already damaged reputation of the United States will only be further tattered with Assange's new martyr status. And whether or not the openly embraced hope of the US government that along with Assange, WikiLeaks will disappear from the scene, is questionable. A platform like WikiLeaks should be able to survive without a frontman, who was just as glamorous as he was polarizing, and whose autocratic leadership style cost him important employees even months ago."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"In the so-called 'war on terror' the democracies of the US and Europe have not only instigated wars without satisfactory reasons but have also tried to reduce the privacy, civil rights and liberties of their citizens. More power for the state but less transparency for the people -- this asymmetrical conflict is self-inflicted by countries like the US and it has created a need for a platform like Wikileaks."

"The new anti-terror powers have made it difficult to bring criticism into the public domain. But now it is much easier to understand 'when who has talked to whom about what'. It doesn't matter if the threat was more imagined than real - it still gave rise to the need for a trustworthy channel. Classic media could not fill this need: It doesn't have a clear awareness of the new, general feeling of being threatened, nor the technical know-how. Wikileaks had both."

"Julian Assange is the star of Wikileaks but the need for his website is bigger than the need for him. If Wikileaks doesn't survive the current attacks then similar sites will take its place, as long as there is a need for them."

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel writes:

"'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter': this Anglo-Saxon saying still holds true in the Internet age. To the US, Assange is a terrorist; to the Internet community, he is a pioneer of freedom. The favourable view of Assange seems to have more sympathy here in Germany -- in any case, discussions use the words 'platform for exposure' and not 'espionage.' However this perception is based on the unproven assumption that Assange was driven by pure motives -- a desire to enlighten."

"One doesn't need a conspiracy theory to have doubts. The mass production of secret documents on WikiLeaks exhibits no particular strategy apart from the exposure of powerful institutions. Assange clearly wants to destabilize the system -- or all the systems. The content as well as the sheer mass of data should ensure that. Many people's clandestine joy over this anarchic strategy of obstruction is a political signal. This is why the conflict with Assange cannot be won through political or economic means. The institutions that Wikileaks attacks must demonstrate the legitimacy of their actions. If that happens, then Assange really will have achieved something for democracy."

-- Mary Beth Warner and Jill Petzing

The World from Berlin: Assange's 'Martyr Status' Further Damages US Reputation - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Willravel · 12-08-2010, 01:57 PM

Needs to be a t-shirt:

When in Sweden, double wrap.

mrmacq · 12-08-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

mrmacq,

For the love of Pete, please don't discuss politics in Haiku. Please type like a normal person. Please.

haiku?
as in

"English haiku do not adhere to the strict syllable count found in Japanese haiku, and the typical length of haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is 10–14 syllables. Some haiku poets are concerned with their haiku being expressed in one breath and the extent to which their haiku focus on "showing" as opposed to "telling".

This is the genius of haiku using an economy of words to paint a multi-tiered painting, without "telling all".

Or as Matsuo Bashō puts it, "The haiku that reveals seventy to eighty percent of its subject is good. Those that reveal fifty to sixty percent, we never tire of...

nah
just my way of posting

sorry if you tire of it so quickly
(youre suggesting im abby normal?)

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

as the details of this charge have surfaced, it's strained credulity...even as it is apparently the law in sweden that a broken condom can result in a rape charge in the context of consensual sex. why that would be the case, i've no idea--not an expert on swedish law by any means.

there has been some information floating about that's labels assange's accuser as someone who's been involved with anti-castro groups etc. but i've no idea how credible it is so haven't put anything here or relayed it elsewhere.

this feels like a put-up job, frankly, as it does to alot of people. beyond that, i agree with loquitor, above.

this is an interesting take, from political scientist henry farrell

The Monkey Cage: State power and the response to Wikileaks

cite from here:
WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

i'm also quite interested in operation payback, but havent the time at the moment to make a post about it. anyone else following this?

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

and this is a press release in support of wikileaks signed by daniel ellsberg, among others. strong stuff:

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)

“This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts,”
palin

yup could have been the VP we'd be dealing with now

oh my frikin god
narrowly escaped that one

"also targeted Amazon, the internet retailer, which provoked their fury by withdrawing server space being used by WikiLeaks to host the government documents.

PayPal admitted it blocked payments to the group – which is embarrassing the US government by steadily releasing a cache of more than 250,000 cables – amid pressure from the State department.

Anonymous's "distributed denial of service" attacks, which have become the standard weapon of cyber warfare, appeared to have temporarily crippled the companies websites last night.

They also brought down the sites of Swedish prosecutors, who are pursuing Julian Assange,

tis elementary my dear watson

dlish · 12-08-2010, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished.

I am all for greater transparency in government, but I also realize that for our national interests to be served there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in diplomatic communications. There are second and third order effects of revealing this information, and I do not trust an anarchist egomaniac to properly decipher what those are, or act accordingly if he did. This is not a case of whistleblowing, this is simply the dumping of raw information with absolutely no context or prior greivance.

does this law apply to american nationals only? or is its jurisdictions against foreign nationals? how far reaching is its jurisdiction if the crime was commited in another country and not american soil?

i guess this is the broad criminal laws Loq was talking about

mrmacq · 12-08-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

does this law apply to american nationals only? or is its jurisdictions against foreign nationals? how far reaching is its jurisdiction if the crime was commited in another country and not american soil?

i guess this is the broad criminal laws Loq was talking about

you ask an interesting question
theres some down there that suggest its treasonous
hello?
"or for treason charges that have been suggested by U.S. politicians, "

now why am i laughing my butt off?

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely ..."

and here i thought we employed the best-est and brightest
to run this world of ours

oh silly me

dippin · 12-08-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished.

I am all for greater transparency in government, but I also realize that for our national interests to be served there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in diplomatic communications. There are second and third order effects of revealing this information, and I do not trust an anarchist egomaniac to properly decipher what those are, or act accordingly if he did. This is not a case of whistleblowing, this is simply the dumping of raw information with absolutely no context or prior greivance.

By that definition, the new york times should also be charged.

mrmacq · 12-08-2010, 09:16 PM

"Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished. "

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz17aO91I9Y

798. Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States
or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853 (b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524 (c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

ah yes the united states version of whats right
the same ones that wont recognise the international courts
or even those courts its deemed as friends

your expressions of self righteous selflessness
is getting tiresome

the bully with the big stick

face it
a lie was exposed

welcome to life

now deal with it
responsibly
(if at all able)

or perhaps we'll see his name on the gitmo registry

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

ya know
the more this goes on
the more im apt to think
you guys got more you wish hidden

circling those wagons

like past interventions of yours werent enough
the great satan?
(wears a white (well sort of discoloUred hat))

i sit here in amazement

Cimarron29414 · 12-09-2010, 07:42 AM

mrmacq,

So it is how you post. Fair enough:

The
trouble
is
that
it
makes
your
post
take
up
too
much
damned
space
on
the
screen
and
makes
it
far
more
difficult
to
read
and
process.
It
disrupts
what
could
be
a
stimulating
discussion
(
Your
posts
certainly
have
great
content.
)
with
a
sort
of
"
look
at
me
"
narcissism.
It's
up
to
you
if
you
want
to
keep
doing
it.
Personally,
I'm
less
likely
to
read
them,
although
others
may
disagree.
Don't
mind
how
I
posted
this,
it's
just
how
I
roll.

dogzilla · 12-09-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

By that definition, the new york times should also be charged.

If it can be proven that any of these disclosures were responsible for compromising US security or resulted in death or injury to formerly confidential sources then prosecute the NYT as well.

roachboy · 12-09-2010, 08:43 AM

figures that the ultra-right would see in this an excuse to threaten one of their favorite Persecuting Others in the ny times.

it makes sense, given that one of the main consequences of the leaks about iraq and afghanistan is evidence for a strong case against members of the bush administration for war crimes.

clearly the problem is the ny times.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

addition: here's a pew research poll regarding popular reaction in the us to wikileaks.

Public Sees WikiLeaks as Harmful - Pew Research Center

it appears that people still like to like what they're told they like to like in the way they're told they like to like those things.

Cimarron29414 · 12-09-2010, 09:12 AM

I don't think there is a single news organization who has not published one of these cables or leaks. I don't see how one could reasonably apply Debaser's statute to every news organization. But, how will it look if one targets only wikileaks? The nature by which the classified information was published makes it difficult to say "this and only this organization can be held criminally liable." Surely, we can foresee the NYT simply stating, "we didn't release it, we simply reported on the release." I believe I've also heard that, at some point, information becomes common knowledge and news organizations can report on it without risk - the Valerie Plame affair comes to mind.

Suffice to say, from my point of view, it is complicated to prosecute on this matter and any action will appear politically motivated since the line is so difficult to draw.

I might add, I believe Assange is just itching to find a reason to release that password. I don't hold him in high regard, so I believe he's capable of inventing one.

dogzilla · 12-09-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

figures that the ultra-right would see in this an excuse to threaten one of their favorite Persecuting Others in the ny

Believing the government should protect it's national security interests and believing the government shouldn't spend money it doesn't have is hardly 'ultra right'.

Al Queda and other terrorist groups have no interest in playing by the Geneva Convention, the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury or any other rules. I see no reason why we should make it easier for them to track down people who have helped the US in the past with confidential information, or why a list of sites sensitive to national security should be published. Sure, a bright terrorist group could figure some of this out on their own, but why help them?

I might not agree with the NYT on some issues, but as long as they aren't compromising US security and people's safety, no big deal.

dksuddeth · 12-09-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Believing the government should protect it's national security interests and believing the government shouldn't spend money it doesn't have is hardly 'ultra right'.

I might not agree with the NYT on some issues, but as long as they aren't compromising US security and people's safety, no big deal.

who do we trust to tell us whether it should be a secret kept from us or not?

roachboy · 12-09-2010, 10:16 AM

for once, i agree with dk.

and it's bizarre to read conservatives who in any other context talk about how evil and irrational the state is now flocking to defend its prerogatives to conceal information from them.

dogzilla · 12-09-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

who do we trust to tell us whether it should be a secret kept from us or not?

Given a choice between people in the government who have the background in national security and military issues and people like wikileaks or news reporters whose purpose seems to be to generate scandals to report about, I'll choose the government. The media has its own agenda too and shouldn't always be trusted either.

ASU2003 · 12-09-2010, 10:50 AM

I want to see the media investigated and 'some' stories on how they operate.

dksuddeth · 12-09-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Given a choice between people in the government who have the background in national security and military issues and people like wikileaks or news reporters whose purpose seems to be to generate scandals to report about, I'll choose the government. The media has its own agenda too and shouldn't always be trusted either.

Uncle Sam is proud of you for being a fine, upstanding, and patriotic follower.

Willravel · 12-09-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Given a choice between people in the government who have the background in national security and military issues and people like wikileaks or news reporters whose purpose seems to be to generate scandals to report about, I'll choose the government. The media has its own agenda too and shouldn't always be trusted either.

You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.

roachboy · 12-09-2010, 12:39 PM

when it comes to almost everything, conservatives assume that the people who work for the state are entirely incompetent--they don't understand the manly man world of bidness, they work to actively "punish success" by having the audacity to favor social stability over individual gain, the "produce crisis" by interfering with the magickal operations of the Market....but now, in this context, the state is manned to the gills with skilled professionals who know better than anyone else possibily could what's best for everyone.

i believe this is what we call horseshit.

dksuddeth · 12-09-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You'll choose Obama and Biden and Hillary and Rahm (or now what's-his-face)? I call bullshit. You're just being anti-left for the sake of being anti-left. You see what the liberals on the internet are supporting and choosing the opposite. Wikileaks is all about small, transparent, accountable government, which is the absolute central tenant of Republicanism, and suddenly the right is opposed to it? Give me a break.

Will, this is no longer true. Hasn't been since reagan. both left and right are for bigger central government, they just have different ideologies to pursue it for. the only reason the 'right' is against wikileaks now is that republicans are for a military/police state and wikileaks is causing harm to that.

Willravel · 12-09-2010, 12:58 PM

I know, but it's fun to point out.

debaser · 12-09-2010, 01:28 PM

Before we get too much hyperbole in here let me just state this:

There is a balance that needs to be struck between totalitarianism and anarchy, and this is not it. What great scandal or corruption was outed? How does publishing a list of sensitive sites benefit the democratic process?

I am all for whistleblowing that solves a problem, but this has done no such thing. It is in all respects like a kid copying his sisters diary and hanging it up around the high school.

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmacq

face it
a lie was exposed

And what lie was that?

12-07-2010, 10:00 PM	#123 (permalink)
glasscutter43 Insane Location: Vancouver Island BC	If any of the cables released by Assange save the US government any money, Assange might qualify for a reward of 10% of any savings under the US goverment's own "Whistleblower" program. Kind of ironic. __________________ Book 'em Danno

12-08-2010, 10:59 AM	#126 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	Yup I agree, either the fellow broke the law and can be charged or he didn't. Simply finding ANYTHING they can think of to throw at him to make a point or just "get him off the street" is sad and quite frankly making a mockery out of the law. Absurd. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

12-08-2010, 11:10 AM	#127 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	Loq - but he didnt break the law. someone else within the US government breached that trust and passed the information onto wikileaks. so really, Assange has done absolutely nothing illegal, probably cant be charged, or wont be charged unless they come up with a retrospective law to pin him to. hes an aussie that lived in sweden who recieved documents from someone who stole them from the US government. we can speak about whether something is morally right or morally wrong, but essentially, if he hasnt broken the law then he should be free. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

12-08-2010, 11:30 AM	#129 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	The article that smeth posted last week revealed a little more detail about the rape charges. They primarily extend from an encounter with a woman that weekend with whom he was having sex without a condom. She claims that she asked him to stop when she realized he wasn't wearing one and he didn't...or something. It's not clear. The incident with the broken condom occurred with another woman and an acquaintance of the woman above. After that weekend, the 'no condom' woman decided to go to the police and the 'broken condom' woman went with her to lend support, not intending to press charges but related her story and, it's unclear how, ended up pressing charges as well. It's all very puzzling and confusing. But not quite as simple as 'his condom broke.' One thing it is safe to conclude, Mssr. Assange likes to get biz-ay with the lay-lay. __________________ 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

12-08-2010, 11:39 AM	#130 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	from what ive read the two women coincidentally met when one of them called his office asking for him because he said he'd call. one of them was working in his office temporarily. thats when they realised they had met before and that he'd been chopping them both in the space of a few days. smells like a case of a woman (women?) scorned. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

12-07-2010, 06:25 PM	#122 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	What is in the torrent file then? Is it just the 960, or all 250k? If the media can only report on just a few things, and doesn't want to or doesn't care to make the connections, then it's not their fault for being slow.

12-08-2010, 10:45 AM	#125 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	This rape business with Assange is ridiculous. One of the reasons I detest broad criminal laws is that if the authorities are out to get you they can always find something to charge you with. So now with Assange it's apparently fucking without a condom. Bloody ridiculous. If they can't charge him with illegally stealing other people's data, which is what he and his confederates did which is so objectionable, then they should leave him free. I remember that back in law school, when I took my criminal law course, it struck me that the laws are written so broadly that everyone is a criminal -- the only thing that saves most of us is the good sense of prosecutors and the limited resources allocated to law enforcement. But the problem with giving government agents discretion is that it's really easy for them to abuse it. I take the rule of law very very seriously. There is little that is worse than governmental lawlessness or standardless discretion. That is, simply put, tyranny.

12-08-2010, 12:31 PM	#132 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	MM- I believe his fear is that, once arrested in Sweden, he would be turned over to U.S. authorities - as there is an extradition treaty in place. This being premised on the U.S. actually pressing charges against him. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

12-08-2010, 12:35 PM	#133 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	yes, I can understand that. Even though it seems unlikely from my perspective, it must be a looming possibility from his. __________________ 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

12-08-2010, 12:42 PM	#134 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	There is supporting evidence that the U.S. has retained people without charges or trial. While I seriously doubt Sweden would just hand him over... __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

12-08-2010, 12:56 PM	#135 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	uh, yeah. I get the feeling there is a lot that we don't know about this particular situation. __________________ 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

12-08-2010, 01:21 PM	#136 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished. I am all for greater transparency in government, but I also realize that for our national interests to be served there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy in diplomatic communications. There are second and third order effects of revealing this information, and I do not trust an anarchist egomaniac to properly decipher what those are, or act accordingly if he did. This is not a case of whistleblowing, this is simply the dumping of raw information with absolutely no context or prior greivance. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

12-08-2010, 01:38 PM	#137 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	roachboy writes: "i'm also quite interested in operation payback, but havent the time at the moment to make a post about it. anyone else following this?" Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz17YbEND6m I've been reading about what they are doing. I know very little about computers & the language & nothing about hacking. This type of disruption is very effective & I my lack of computer knowledge brain wonders why it hasn't been used more often. It's a bit overwhelming. Computers go down & transactions halt. At the grocery store & bank -during a recent power outage, the clerks stood blinking & foundered. "Uhh, you'll just have to come back later." Quite the revolutionary tool that I'm surprised hasn't been used sooner.

12-08-2010, 01:41 PM	#138 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	debaser, The link to the statute was very helpful. Thank you. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

12-08-2010, 01:57 PM	#140 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Needs to be a t-shirt: *When in Sweden, double wrap.*

12-08-2010, 09:16 PM	#145 (permalink)
mrmacq Upright Location: lotus land 3rd igloo on the right	"Our government would be remiss if he is not charged with espionage. What he did clearly violates 18 U.S.C. § 798 and he should be punished. " Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz17aO91I9Y 798. Disclosure of classified information (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section— The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications; The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States; The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients; The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States. (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof. (d) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law— (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and (B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation. (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1). (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853 (b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to— (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection; (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection. (4) Notwithstanding section 524 (c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law. (5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States. ah yes the united states version of whats right the same ones that wont recognise the international courts or even those courts its deemed as friends your expressions of self righteous selflessness is getting tiresome the bully with the big stick face it a lie was exposed welcome to life now deal with it responsibly (if at all able) or perhaps we'll see his name on the gitmo registry ---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ---------- ya know the more this goes on the more im apt to think you guys got more you wish hidden circling those wagons like past interventions of yours werent enough the great satan? (wears a white (well sort of discoloUred hat)) i sit here in amazement __________________ never stop questioning,curiosity has its own rewards Last edited by mrmacq; 12-08-2010 at 09:02 PM..

12-09-2010, 07:42 AM	#146 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	mrmacq, So it is how you post. Fair enough: The trouble is that it makes your post take up too much damned space on the screen and makes it far more difficult to read and process. It disrupts what could be a stimulating discussion ( Your posts certainly have great content. ) with a sort of " look at me " narcissism. It's up to you if you want to keep doing it. Personally, I'm less likely to read them, although others may disagree. Don't mind how I posted this, it's just how I roll. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

12-09-2010, 08:43 AM	#148 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	figures that the ultra-right would see in this an excuse to threaten one of their favorite Persecuting Others in the ny times. it makes sense, given that one of the main consequences of the leaks about iraq and afghanistan is evidence for a strong case against members of the bush administration for war crimes. clearly the problem is the ny times. ---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ---------- addition: here's a pew research poll regarding popular reaction in the us to wikileaks. Public Sees WikiLeaks as Harmful - Pew Research Center it appears that people still like to like what they're told they like to like in the way they're told they like to like those things. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-09-2010, 09:12 AM	#149 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I don't think there is a single news organization who has not published one of these cables or leaks. I don't see how one could reasonably apply Debaser's statute to every news organization. But, how will it look if one targets only wikileaks? The nature by which the classified information was published makes it difficult to say "this and only this organization can be held criminally liable." Surely, we can foresee the NYT simply stating, "we didn't release it, we simply reported on the release." I believe I've also heard that, at some point, information becomes common knowledge and news organizations can report on it without risk - the Valerie Plame affair comes to mind. Suffice to say, from my point of view, it is complicated to prosecute on this matter and any action will appear politically motivated since the line is so difficult to draw. I might add, I believe Assange is just itching to find a reason to release that password. I don't hold him in high regard, so I believe he's capable of inventing one. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

12-09-2010, 10:16 AM	#152 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	for once, i agree with dk. and it's bizarre to read conservatives who in any other context talk about how evil and irrational the state is now flocking to defend its prerogatives to conceal information from them. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-09-2010, 10:50 AM	#154 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I want to see the media investigated and 'some' stories on how they operate.

12-09-2010, 12:39 PM	#157 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	when it comes to almost everything, conservatives assume that the people who work for the state are entirely incompetent--they don't understand the manly man world of bidness, they work to actively "punish success" by having the audacity to favor social stability over individual gain, the "produce crisis" by interfering with the magickal operations of the Market....but now, in this context, the state is manned to the gills with skilled professionals who know better than anyone else possibily could what's best for everyone. i believe this is what we call horseshit. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-09-2010, 12:58 PM	#159 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I know, but it's fun to point out.