Wikileaks Mega Thread!

[Terraius]

Oh the irony of you bleeding heart liberals. "How dare they take away our civil rights to endanger other people's life's and civil rights."

I love it.

This from the same side that liked to use "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" as justification for reduced civil rights and privacy post 9/11. Hilarious.

So your justifying the lesser of two evils? Clearly I am the crazy one here, clearly.

[Terraius]

Im also waiting for someone to justify leaking government secrets to the world other then 'in the name of liberty and freedom'.

[The Corparation]

Im also waiting for someone to justify leaking government secrets to the world other then 'in the name of liberty and freedom'.

In th name of Treason maybe?

[Andaluciae]

Wikileaks just released a list of locations vital to US security:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

I'm increasingly convinced that Assange doesn't necessarily care about transparency, and only desires to do damage to the US and its allies, because he perceives them as some sorry of comic book villains.

[Andaluciae]

Im also waiting for someone to justify leaking government secrets to the world other then 'in the name of liberty and freedom'.

,W ellwe know why Manning (the guy who leaked these documents) did it: He was getting fired because he criminally assaulted another soldier, and he was pissed off at his boss. He wanted to get back at him, and this seemed the easiest way. Steal everything, indiscriminately, and give it to wiki leaks.

[Gauthier]

Im also waiting for someone to justify leaking government secrets to the world other then 'in the name of liberty and freedom'.

,W ellwe know why Manning (the guy who leaked these documents) did it: He was getting fired because he criminally assaulted another soldier, and he was pissed off at his boss. He wanted to get back at him, and this seemed the easiest way. Steal everything, indiscriminately, and give it to wiki leaks.

It's funny how Real Americans are calling for Wikileaks to be treated as a terrorist organization. Like I said before, they're not an intelligence agency. Any secrets they obtain were given to them, and thus the fault lies at where the information was obtained from.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same people calling for the destruction of Wikileaks defended Robert Novak for exposing Valerie Plame Wilson as an undercover operative.

[Nobel Hobos]

As well as disbanding a key part of or civil liberties the US government is trying to block wiki-leaks. Which was going to publish document detailing on the personal lives of diplomats and National leaders as well as the US opinion of world governments.

Oh the irony of you bleeding heart liberals. "How dare they take away our civil rights to endanger other people's life's and civil rights."

I love it.

First point: with the post you quote properly linked to, it is clear that "you bleeding heart liberals" refers to the poster not the post. As a personal attack it is mild, but it's still personal.

Now, to your point: how does Wikileaks endanger anyone's civil rights?

[Bendira]

Im also waiting for someone to justify leaking government secrets to the world other then 'in the name of liberty and freedom'.

Lol yeah, who cares about liberty and feedom amirite?

[GPERNF]

Is there actually any evidence that the government is behind the DOS attack on wikileaks? It could just be a bunch of right wing hackers.

Why not Left Wing hackers.

[Verum Aeternus]

Personally, I'm mostly just amused to watch American officials spasm and squirm for once. A little bit of chaos goes a long way when everything is under control and people have grown accustomed to being completely removed from any kind of responsibility or oversight.

Also, aside from being kind of a dick, Julian Assange IS the worlds first Cyberpunk anti-hero. You have to admit that is pretty awesome!

[Terraius]

Oh the irony of you bleeding heart liberals. "How dare they take away our civil rights to endanger other people's life's and civil rights."

I love it.

First point: with the post you quote properly linked to, it is clear that "you bleeding heart liberals" refers to the poster not the post. As a personal attack it is mild, but it's still personal.

Now, to your point: how does Wikileaks endanger anyone's civil rights?

Life is a right. Putting peoples lives at danger is not your right.

Im also waiting for someone to justify leaking government secrets to the world other then 'in the name of liberty and freedom'.

Lol yeah, who cares about liberty and feedom amirite?

Because in the fantasy world freedom and civil rights have no boundaries because people can exercise self control and responsibility, and there is absolutely noone in the world who would possible want to use these documents for evil. In the real world, people as a whole have proven to be destructive, malicious beings, and thus laws and regulations have to be put in place to ensure that everyone is protected. Just because you think yourself can be trusted to not kill, steal, or rape, does not mean the next person is capable of restraining himself from those crimes, just as how maybe you wont be using secret documents for espionage or to harm Americans, but the next guy might.

In retrospect, its interesting how the double standard is; people want to criticize the government for keeping secrets yet are so quick to rise up and bitch whenever they feel their own privacy is at risk, as if the government or the nation at whole has no right to privacy yet the people are entitled to it fully in return.

[Geniasis]

I imagine that this would be because the Government is effectively the opposite of a private citizen. It is also not an individual. I thought this was common knowledge.

[Terraius]

I imagine that this would be because the Government is effectively the opposite of a private citizen. It is also not an individual. I thought this was common knowledge.

Wrong, the founding fathers wanted government to be organized around the citizen and public offices, not a restrictive invite-only monarchy, so your argument is invalid, other then the quite obvious that in numerical terms collective =/= individual, in which case you would be very much correct.

[Terraius]

BUT WAIT. Collective groups are not welcome to privacy. Perfect. Now we can finally crush those dirty arabs and fags who are trying to destroy our American way of life.

[Georgism]

Im also waiting for someone to justify leaking government secrets to the world other then 'in the name of liberty and freedom'.

So we can have another reason to dislike America?

[Verum Aeternus]

In retrospect, its interesting how the double standard is; people want to criticize the government for keeping secrets yet are so quick to rise up and bitch whenever they feel their own privacy is at risk, as if the government or the nation at whole has no right to privacy yet the people are entitled to it fully in return.

As things stand now, our political and industrial leaders operate in near total secrecy, protected by a bulwark of laws that will ruthlessly prosecute anyone who breaches security protocols or trade secrecy/copyright laws. Meanwhile, individuals are subject to an inexorably advancing invasion of privacy, civil liberties, and personal autonomy. How, exactly, is this preferable?

[Fson]

Do you not support freedom of the press? Or would you rather have a government run news service like Iran or China?

I'll remember to add smilies to ensure you spot less than serious posts. It's not like the UK are adverse to such moves in the past though

A member of Sinn Fein IRA? an organisation that before the ceasefire was killing innoncent British and Irish citizens?


I think there is a wee a bit of a difference son..

[Geniasis]

Wrong, the founding fathers wanted government to be organized around the citizen and public offices, not a restrictive invite-only monarchy, so your argument is invalid, other then the quite obvious that in numerical terms collective =/= individual, in which case you would be very much correct.

Can I see a source, or is this simply more bullshit?

[Cosmopoles]

And nobody sees the long term implications in this. Wikileaks gets shut down and Assange gets prosecuted, that's pretty much the demise of whistleblowing. The Wikileaks treatment will be used as precedence and applied to any group or organization that certain entities don't want divulging confidential and/or embrassing/criminal details in order to silence them.

It's a small world after all and everyone is starting to look Chinese.

If WikiLeaks really wants to stand up for whistleblowers, perhaps it should focus on exposing actual crimes and not the opinions of diplomats or what the US regards as key infrastructure points. Who's interest is being served there?

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't think that yelling "Fire!" in a theatre ought to be illegal.

Why not?

Because there isn't any point to it except to use as a defense of censorship.

[The Parkus Empire]

Never mind that if there is no fire and you cause a panic it might cause a stampede that could kill someone?

Oops... Right?

There are all kinds of things somebody could say that might hypothetically cause a stampede, and I think the person in question in this situation would be fairly impossible to pinpoint ex post facto. But I highly doubt people would panic and run at such in a word in a fucking theatre. First thing they would do would be look for the fire.

[The Parkus Empire]

Never mind that if there is no fire and you cause a panic it might cause a stampede that could kill someone?

Oops... Right?

There are all kinds of things somebody could say that might hypothetically cause a stampede, and I think the person in question in this situation would be fairly impossible to pinpoint ex post facto. And the situation in this day and age begs credulity.

[The Parkus Empire]

Because he's Parkus and doesn't think anything ought to be anything. All he does is sit back, and torture his lungs whilst watching Sin City all day in order to remember all the lines verbatim.

I'm more of a Down by Law kinda guy.

[Pepe Dominguez]

Wrong, the founding fathers wanted government to be organized around the citizen and public offices, not a restrictive invite-only monarchy, so your argument is invalid, other then the quite obvious that in numerical terms collective =/= individual, in which case you would be very much correct.

Can I see a source, or is this simply more bullshit?

Any time you have someone claiming to know the collective opinion of "The Founding Fathers" (as though they were a monolithic hivemind), you can count on some bullshit being present, as a rule.

[Northwest Slobovia]

And nobody sees the long term implications in this. Wikileaks gets shut down and Assange gets prosecuted, that's pretty much the demise of whistleblowing.

Oh, please. Actual whistleblowing is protected by law in many countries, as is freedom of speech. You don't see the US trying to shut down any newspapers repeating Wikileaks' revelations, do you? No. You didn't see the US trying to them down after a US soldier handed them the damning pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib, did you? No. The US appears quite clear on when to take its lumps for wrongdoing.

If WikiLeaks really wants to stand up for whistleblowers, perhaps it should focus on exposing actual crimes and not the opinions of diplomats or what the US regards as key infrastructure points.

...and then trying to blackmail countries with "if you hold us accountable for our actions, we'll do more damage". There's whistleblowing -- which I'm all in favor of; the US has done plenty of bad things -- and then there's self-aggrandizement at the expense of the US and its allies.

Who's interest is being served there?

Indeed.