Opinions on Wiki Leaks
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: Crestview, FL
If someone took pictures of my niece that were inappropriate, then turned them over to Larry Flint, who then published them without her consent. I'd be so deep Larry's *** he'd be able to taste the difference between a right cross and a left uppercut. Never mind whether those pictures should have ever existed in the first place, or that they were entrusted to the wrong person. (Who would also be lucky to escape with his ***** still intact.)
The guy at Wiki-leaks is self-promoting at the expense of US credibility with our allies. And maybe at the cost of lives. I'd be disappointed if my government didn't make his life miserable.
The guy at Wiki-leaks is self-promoting at the expense of US credibility with our allies. And maybe at the cost of lives. I'd be disappointed if my government didn't make his life miserable.
These leaks have done grave damage to the U.S.A.
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
Only if you love your country and those who serve it a great deal less than you do your family members... Or you're a complete moron, and you can't follow an analogy.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 873
Likes: 1
From: Somewhere in the EU
Good point, but are the Pentagon Papers and Wiki-leaks the same thing? Are Ellsburg and Assange cut from the same cloth? There is plenty of discussion on that issue. Ellsburg turned himself in and faced his charges. The blogger, Julian Assange, has (up until his arrest on rape charges in Britain) tried to blackmail authorities with a "Doomsday File" if he's taken into custody. The Pentagon Papers were exposures of bad policy and had little or no affect on the war in Vietnam... beyond public opinion. The Wikileaks documents go much farther into details that at worst put individual people at risk of being murdered and give the enemies of the US intel they may not have had prior to the leaks.
Second, I didn't mention Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers to claim they were the same thing (although if you're using weak analogies like you did with your niece I guess you could see it that way), I brought up New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) because of the idea of First Amendment rights to freedom of the press.
Seems there are a lot of people (not just opinions expressed in this thread) screaming for Assange's head, some believe he's guilty of espionage, some foolishly thinking that he's guilty of treason, and there's a lot of confusion about the WikiLeaks organization "publishing" whatever information they have and whether or not The Times et al., have a right to publish it, and that by doing so they are a threat to national security and endangering lives.
The SC's 6-3 decision in 1971 in N.Y.T. v. U.S., was more of a deferral than anything else, with the Court essentially saying they agreed with two prior decisions rejecting the U.S.'s request for an injunction.
What is important about that case, and why I brought it up, concerned the opinions that the Justices wrote. The main one having the most overall relevance to what's going on with WikiLeaks being the opinion written by Justice Black:
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. […] The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.
—New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).
With regard as to whether or not Assange and or WikiLeaks is a threat to national security, Justice Thurgood Marshall in his concurring opinion of New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) said that "national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint.
And as for releasing information being a threat to national security and endangering lives . . . which came first, the chicken or the egg? The policies and/or actions of a government (both privately and publicly) or the release of information that exposes it? (with exposure in such a manner that has repeatedly been upheld by the courts as ultimately for the public good) (which, by the way, when you're talking about first amendment rights and national security et al., using analogies such as your niece and Larry Flint - although I see what you're trying to say - isn't exactly the the best analogy you can use, so in that sense, Shosty is right)
What's going on here is important in both the short term and the long term. The knee-jerk reaction to shoot anyone associated with this is not looking at the bigger picture and such a myopic view ultimately is more dangerous than the supposed crimes Assange is indirectly accused of.
Last edited by kobiashi; Dec 8, 2010 at 07:18 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
The governments and corporate entities who are making Assange's internet mayhem factory hard to run may or may not be in the legal right (That's still to be determined.), but I cheer them for it... And would think less of them if they just did nothing and let the bastard self-aggrandize at our expense. And when I say "our", I mean the soldiers who live and die in harms way for our interests in the world. I mean the people who are hurt by his arrogance.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
First of all, Assange has not been arrested on rape charges in G.B.
Second, I didn't mention Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers to claim they were the same thing (although if you're using weak analogies like you did with your niece I guess you could see it that way), I brought up New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) because of the idea of First Amendment rights to freedom of the press.
Seems there are a lot of people (not just opinions expressed in this thread) screaming for Assange's head, some believe he's guilty of espionage, some foolishly thinking that he's guilty of treason, and there's a lot of confusion about the WikiLeaks organization "publishing" whatever information they have and whether or not The Times et al., have a right to publish it, and that by doing so they are a threat to national security and endangering lives.
The SC's 6-3 decision in 1971 in N.Y.T. v. U.S., was more of a deferral than anything else, with the Court essentially saying they agreed with two prior decisions rejecting the U.S.'s request for an injunction.
What is important about that case, and why I brought it up, concerned the opinions that the Justices wrote. The main one having the most overall relevance to what's going on with WikiLeaks being the opinion written by Justice Black:
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. […] The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.
—New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).
With regard as to whether or not Assange and or WikiLeaks is a threat to national security, Justice Thurgood Marshall in his concurring opinion of New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) said that "national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint.
And as for releasing information being a threat to national security and endangering lives . . . which came first, the chicken or the egg? The policies and/or actions of a government (both privately and publicly) or the release of information that exposes it? (with exposure in such a manner that has repeatedly been upheld by the courts as ultimately for the public good) (which, by the way, when you're talking about first amendment rights and national security et al., using analogies such as your niece and Larry Flint - although I see what you're trying to say - isn't exactly the the best analogy you can use, so in that sense, Shosty is right)
What's going on here is important in both the short term and the long term. The knee-jerk reaction to have anyone associated with this shot is not looking at the bigger picture and such a myopic view ultimately is more dangerous than the supposed crimes Assange is indirectly accused of.
Second, I didn't mention Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers to claim they were the same thing (although if you're using weak analogies like you did with your niece I guess you could see it that way), I brought up New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) because of the idea of First Amendment rights to freedom of the press.
Seems there are a lot of people (not just opinions expressed in this thread) screaming for Assange's head, some believe he's guilty of espionage, some foolishly thinking that he's guilty of treason, and there's a lot of confusion about the WikiLeaks organization "publishing" whatever information they have and whether or not The Times et al., have a right to publish it, and that by doing so they are a threat to national security and endangering lives.
The SC's 6-3 decision in 1971 in N.Y.T. v. U.S., was more of a deferral than anything else, with the Court essentially saying they agreed with two prior decisions rejecting the U.S.'s request for an injunction.
What is important about that case, and why I brought it up, concerned the opinions that the Justices wrote. The main one having the most overall relevance to what's going on with WikiLeaks being the opinion written by Justice Black:
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. […] The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.
—New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).
With regard as to whether or not Assange and or WikiLeaks is a threat to national security, Justice Thurgood Marshall in his concurring opinion of New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) said that "national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint.
And as for releasing information being a threat to national security and endangering lives . . . which came first, the chicken or the egg? The policies and/or actions of a government (both privately and publicly) or the release of information that exposes it? (with exposure in such a manner that has repeatedly been upheld by the courts as ultimately for the public good) (which, by the way, when you're talking about first amendment rights and national security et al., using analogies such as your niece and Larry Flint - although I see what you're trying to say - isn't exactly the the best analogy you can use, so in that sense, Shosty is right)
What's going on here is important in both the short term and the long term. The knee-jerk reaction to have anyone associated with this shot is not looking at the bigger picture and such a myopic view ultimately is more dangerous than the supposed crimes Assange is indirectly accused of.
Surprise! Kobi and I don't agree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctaPCny08Mo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_792956.html (Liberal confirmation link.)
Last edited by Odin's Wrath; Dec 9, 2010 at 09:04 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,730
Likes: 42
From: Concord, NC
I heard that reference to the Pentagon Papers today... the radio host said there is essentially no way to shut the operation down, it's nearly impossible. Even if they get the guy Assange or w/e his name is, it will still go on. Jay Sevrin (969FM talk) was the host if anyone heard it. He may be guilty of espionage, but whoever gave him the information is to blame and that is who should be sought out more so. Sevrin made a good point of saying that reporters who make headway in huge cases tend to get info from a person who should not have leaked information. That seems to be what is going on here and Assange or the rest of Wikileaks people are the ones taking the info and publishing out. There are many troubling problems with this one.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 873
Likes: 1
From: Somewhere in the EU
So . . . Shosty . . .
You're screwed:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/...ex.html?hpt=C1
The whole article is freaking insane and frightening. I recommend you read it.
Also, paragraphs 11-13, take note.
Expunge any and all posts about this topic in this and any other forums you may belong to, including Facebook, MySpace, and any other social networking sites. Replace content in those postings with something benign. For example, in all posts on F150online you might consider replacing everything with "Nice truck. Welcome to the forum!" so that it appears you're on topic.
As for those inane social networking sites you're on your own with those. Honestly, why anyone who may ever need a job is on one of those sites is beyond me. Anything like that will alway be used against you, never in your favor.
RUN!!!!!
You're screwed:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/...ex.html?hpt=C1
The whole article is freaking insane and frightening. I recommend you read it.
Also, paragraphs 11-13, take note.
Expunge any and all posts about this topic in this and any other forums you may belong to, including Facebook, MySpace, and any other social networking sites. Replace content in those postings with something benign. For example, in all posts on F150online you might consider replacing everything with "Nice truck. Welcome to the forum!" so that it appears you're on topic.
As for those inane social networking sites you're on your own with those. Honestly, why anyone who may ever need a job is on one of those sites is beyond me. Anything like that will alway be used against you, never in your favor.
RUN!!!!!
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
If that's all you got from the analogy, then you're even more challenged than I thought. I'm not within my legal rights to kick the crap out of Larry Flint, if he crosses the line I described... But that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. Consequences be damned.
The governments and corporate entities who are making Assange's internet mayhem factory hard to run may or may not be in the legal right (That's still to be determined.), but I cheer them for it... And would think less of them if they just did nothing and let the bastard self-aggrandize at our expense. And when I say "our", I mean the soldiers who live and die in harms way for our interests in the world. I mean the people who are hurt by his arrogance.
The governments and corporate entities who are making Assange's internet mayhem factory hard to run may or may not be in the legal right (That's still to be determined.), but I cheer them for it... And would think less of them if they just did nothing and let the bastard self-aggrandize at our expense. And when I say "our", I mean the soldiers who live and die in harms way for our interests in the world. I mean the people who are hurt by his arrogance.
nope, in fact it might give them a kick in the *** to make better decisions. they ran on a platform of 'transparency' and have been all but. this is transparency being forced on them.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
What are the odds Barry Sotoro applied to school as a foreign student from Indonesia?
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Lubbock, TX
If that's all you got from the analogy, then you're even more challenged than I thought. I'm not within my legal rights to kick the crap out of Larry Flint, if he crosses the line I described... But that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. Consequences be damned.
The governments and corporate entities who are making Assange's internet mayhem factory hard to run may or may not be in the legal right (That's still to be determined.), but I cheer them for it... And would think less of them if they just did nothing and let the bastard self-aggrandize at our expense. And when I say "our", I mean the soldiers who live and die in harms way for our interests in the world. I mean the people who are hurt by his arrogance.
The governments and corporate entities who are making Assange's internet mayhem factory hard to run may or may not be in the legal right (That's still to be determined.), but I cheer them for it... And would think less of them if they just did nothing and let the bastard self-aggrandize at our expense. And when I say "our", I mean the soldiers who live and die in harms way for our interests in the world. I mean the people who are hurt by his arrogance.
So . . . Shosty . . .
You're screwed:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/...ex.html?hpt=C1
The whole article is freaking insane and frightening. I recommend you read it.
Also, paragraphs 11-13, take note.
Expunge any and all posts about this topic in this and any other forums you may belong to, including Facebook, MySpace, and any other social networking sites. Replace content in those postings with something benign. For example, in all posts on F150online you might consider replacing everything with "Nice truck. Welcome to the forum!" so that it appears you're on topic.
As for those inane social networking sites you're on your own with those. Honestly, why anyone who may ever need a job is on one of those sites is beyond me. Anything like that will alway be used against you, never in your favor.
RUN!!!!!
You're screwed:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/...ex.html?hpt=C1
The whole article is freaking insane and frightening. I recommend you read it.
Also, paragraphs 11-13, take note.
Expunge any and all posts about this topic in this and any other forums you may belong to, including Facebook, MySpace, and any other social networking sites. Replace content in those postings with something benign. For example, in all posts on F150online you might consider replacing everything with "Nice truck. Welcome to the forum!" so that it appears you're on topic.
As for those inane social networking sites you're on your own with those. Honestly, why anyone who may ever need a job is on one of those sites is beyond me. Anything like that will alway be used against you, never in your favor.
RUN!!!!!
I see it as the government "warning me" that if I happen to so much as read the news on any given day, I might be subject to consequences in the future.
If the govt is allowed to operate in secret, it is no longer a government by the people, for the people, but a government by the corporations, for the corporations. I guess we're already pretty much there, but whatever.
Another interesting event is the Anon attack on MasterCard for declining to transfer money (or whatever) to Wikileaks. Random Internet dwellers are now beginning to combat against the tyranny of the corporations, and its having an effect on daily business. It might be real SHTF time-->buy bullets and whiskey. Bullets and whiskey will be a good currency to trade in.