Wikileaks And Anonymous

did you mean tourists?
i know people can mix up the two especially when a person of dark completion happens to visit the states.
this is the first white guy they've tried to peg as a terrorist in a long while.

About nine months.

Erm white person I mean D: You said guy.

yup, I said guy for a reason.
:P

So I should be EXTREMELY privy to this info?
I kind of am but I have been avoiding looking at most of it.

i thought she looked pretty fine for being in her 40's but other than that, I think I didn't really care as much.
I also didn't sit and work on a computer all day so I didn't really give myself the time to care about this stuff as much.
I think it's because it wasn't someone outside of the government letting the info out but someone outside of the government,

apparently it's OK for some as long as the government decides who lives and dies with secrets, everyone else is not privy.

It is your personal responsibility to know the name and locations of informants, which if exposed, could ultimately lead to their demise?

It is your personal responsibility to know what information other countries share with us for intelligence value? Who are you, and what do you do? Are you DIRNSA? SECDEF? Someone who directs foreign policy matters, or creates weapon systems? I'm leaning towards a "no" answer to that.

I took an oath to defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Anyone willingly publicizing the classified locations of facilities, names of informants we use that give us intel as to the apprehension of terrorists/locations of IEDs which kill my brothers, and information other countries entrust us with, is an enemy of the state.

You feel you deserve to know this information, knowing the atrocities which can take place when information such as this is disclosed unlawfully? That is by far the most arrogant statement I've ever heard,

Please tell me you are referring to the Patriot Act, in regards to "sacrificing the 4th amendment".

Freedom of speech has limits. The disclosure of classified material is not protected under the first amendment. Sedition is not covered. The Sedition Act (if i recall correctly) was primarily against writings/speech opposing the government, as well as making false claims against them etc.. the publicizing of classified documents does not fall under the outlined crimes in the Sedition Act.

As for the Pentagon Papers.. the Supreme Court did not rule that the Media can publish classified material all it wants. They did, however, rule that the media can publish classified documents providing the government cannot prove grave and irreparable danger.

It just got personal...
Is Wikileaks subject to U.S. law?

Found here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/wikileaks-founder-lurks-beyond-grip-of-u-s-law-commentary-by-ann-woolner.html

So, basically, no.

Since he violated a section of the US Code that deals with Espionage, and the FBI can "go after him" for doing so, yes.. he (perhaps not wikileaks itself, but Assange) is subject to US law.

Edit: we can, but we can't at the same time.

Since some people have mentioned double standards...

Is it a double standard to protect foreigners under our constitution, but not subject them to US laws when they break a treasonous law relating to our country?

link

I imagine you posted that without getting to read Nevills post though.
That refresh button is a *** sometimes -_- Don't feel bad it gets me too, especially when my internets start going meh with server lag.

It's a double-standard to apply our law on our land/bases but not to apply it to people who fall under neither?

I'm sorry Yokiko, that's more of an exaggeration, but it's in the same vein of thinking.
We could easily discuss the moral implications of this, but do you really expect anyone to answer your one-sided questions?

Perhaps the way I phrased it wasn't the best..

Is it a double standard to protect a French national under the rights of our Constitution, but not subject that same French national to our laws when he breaks them (in regards to doing damage to our country)?

I/m using a "french national" as an example. I am not referring to any specific case or person.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the assumption that Wikileaks stopped targeting documents of national security, and now only leaks ambassador type correspondence.

I'm just curious, what is your opinion of the late Robert Novak?

Why do you feel the need to specify French national, what if we specify North Korean national?
(Assange is Austrailian, so that's why I'm confused as to the relevance of France)

I never closely followed the CIA op leak. All I remember from that, was that Plame was named as a CIA operative. The intricate details of the "scandal".. I'm ignorant of.

And naming Plame as a CIA operative is what made it illegal according to the espionage act.

Available to millions.. yes. But it's not information that is "readily" available. You do have to search and compile. You can't simply log in and just go to town on documents. They do have to be found and compiled first.

When did I give the notion that "i assume im the only one..."? And when did I say I have any type of clearance?

Aren't they not easily readable because they kind of are forced to be that way?

Reading anything on the PC is not easy.
You have to turn it on, and move that mouse around if it's still on to wake the machine up(possibly log in)
wait for start items to load, open up firefox/chrome(for the general browser firefox/ie with ton of addons) then you have to let your homepage load and enter a search/type the wikileaks address in the URL.
I myself would do a search because I would just find the wiki and go to the link from there since the whole url deal is iffy.
then you wold get to that process of actually getting the info ready.
i think you hinged yourself too much on the word "readily" there.

but pretty much you have two points of argument.
1.)Morality
2.)Syntax

People are so readily dismissive today. Not getting into your disagreements, just don't dismiss people until they've proven themselves over a sizable amount of posts. It's insulting to people who earned it like... Jet and Pchan.

Edit: That wasn't a shot at anyone. Just saying she didn't earn a dismissive remark. Of all the people I've disagreed with about various things on this site, Yokiko is one of the most civil and one of the few who does put thought into her posts. I respect her for the way she has carried herself in this thread. Granted she made some remarks that bordered personal attacks, she has not directly resorted to name-calling or dismissive-ness.

Let's keep the discussion going without descending into personal attacks and dismissive-ness. At least until warranted by an inability to admit that on one aspect of a given subject, the person got their facts wrong no matter the evidence to the contrary. Like is the case with someone else on this site whose avatar isn't Dave Ghrol dressed as a female with pigtails (had to say that so the person couldn't come say it was me :-D).

dismissive is as dismissive does.



you say this is not a shot at anyone, but then you refer to a specific person.
it makes me confused as to what you were trying to say and would make more sense if it was in fact directed at someone.

and i know technically the post is probably directed at catastrophe with the whole "arrogant" remark.

but it's not like she didn't come off with a "who are YOU to ask these questions/need to know this information?" kind of attitude, which is the same as implying that I don't need to know the information in the first place.
which I don't entirely disagree with, as I haven't read any of it.
The brunt of the questioning until I reset the format to spell out what my position is was slanted for cornering an individual with questions that where highly rhetorical more than anything.
and I'm not saying all of the posts were like that.
just the really long ones ....lol

other than that i agree with you.
I go post by post with most, except when most of the posts are garbage.(jet)

Erm, I meant anyone in this discussion. Obviously a shot was taken in that post (two of them), but I thought it was apparent enough that the second one was also at Jet. The second being a more subtle shot so as not to troll him into the discussion with some more garbage posts. I meant no ill towards Catastrophe, Yokiko, Nevill, Blindphleb, or you in that post.

I got what you meant...just seemed a bit silly to point out one name and not the other :p
not like you couldn't have tagged on the whole "no-ill will" bit at the end though :P.
i'm just a nitpicker.
I stand by my opinion about the previous contents of Yokiko's posts.
that's what made it a bit hard for me to answer them because it was an argument made on an assumption of my stance on the subject.
As to the word privy.
I dunno.
It's just sounds funny honestly, that and i've never been a fan of condescending rhetorical preaching.
When I went to church I'd mock the do this or you're going to hell rants too if it makes you feel any better.