Belgian_Draft 0 #176 February 9, 2011 QuoteSpanish Inquisition: "You're a heretic and I know you're a heretic. Therefore I will torture you until you confess to being a heretic. Then we will kill you - for the good of your soul of course" Sounds stupid? It happens in the world probably every day. Any 'secrets' or abuses of power that move us closer to this I am against. Rendition, torture, secret trials, secret juries, unethical wars, and then secrets to justify those wars. Forget it. Me? Keep a secret? c'mon I thought I had your vote when i run for Congress..... I've already said...maybe you missed it...that i am not opposed to exposing illegal activity on part of the government. What I am opposed to is the indiscriminate release of documents by somebody who should not have them to begin with. It is not up to ASSange what secrets of the US should be made public and which ones shouldn't.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #177 February 9, 2011 >It is scary to think there are people who believe all of that. Fortunately there are few around today. Back then? There were a great many. He was a very hated man - so hated that he was eventually assassinated for his views. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #178 February 9, 2011 >I've already said...maybe you missed it...that i am not opposed to exposing >illegal activity on part of the government. Ay, but there's the rub. Who's going to decide that? The government? I'm sure Nixon would have rather kept Watergate under wraps - purely for the security of the US Government in a time of war, of course. >It is not up to ASSange what secrets of the US should be made public and which >ones shouldn't. So who's it up to? Assange is no better (or worse) than Woodward, or Bernstein, or Drudge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #179 February 10, 2011 QuoteI thought I did answer your question, perhaps you have trouble understanding the way I put it. I will attempt to clarify. If Julian Assange or ANYONE else posted my PERSONAL information on a website, i would consider that an invasion of my privacy and it would be wrong. If Julian Assange or ANYONE else posts government stuff on a website, I am OK with that. I believe the differences are clear - personal protections under the constitution and supported by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, versus secret and corrupt government, which is/was meant to be transparent and open to scrutiny by the PEOPLE. No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done. And you say that becasue you are privy to all that every country has in the way of relationships and secrets regarding all US policies and you are a political anylist and can decifer what and how damaging all that various information has caused. Or does it just feel good to you with no basis whatsoever? Have you ever considered that the other countries that were effected by the information wouldn't publicize it in order to keep thier plans secret? Guess what - that means that you wouldn't hear of it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #180 February 10, 2011 Quote>I've already said...maybe you missed it...that i am not opposed to exposing >illegal activity on part of the government. Ay, but there's the rub. Who's going to decide that? The government? I'm sure Nixon would have rather kept Watergate under wraps - purely for the security of the US Government in a time of war, of course. >It is not up to ASSange what secrets of the US should be made public and which >ones shouldn't. So who's it up to? Assange is no better (or worse) than Woodward, or Bernstein, or Drudge. Who do you think should be responsible for releasing secret info? Obviously the government isn't going to release any if they can help it, and people like ASSange want to release everything.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #181 February 10, 2011 >Who do you think should be responsible for releasing secret info? Well, the person who IS responsible for releasing it is the person who possesses it, obviously. >Obviously the government isn't going to release any if they can help it, and people >like ASSange want to release everything. Probably true. If, as is usual here on SC, only one of those two extremes is even under consideration, I'd go with releasing everything rather than total secrecy. Sunshine has a beneficial effect on government in general. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #182 February 10, 2011 Quote>It is scary to think there are people who believe all of that. Fortunately there are few around today. Back then? There were a great many. He was a very hated man - so hated that he was eventually assassinated for his views. Difference being MLK stayed within the law. All his speaches were above board and legal. All his rallies were legal and had permits. His marches had take the steps to be legal. He stayed within the law because he knew going outside the law would only give ammunition to those that opposed him. ASSange makes his way by breaking the law without regard to consequence for anyone accept himself.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #183 February 10, 2011 Quote>Who do you think should be responsible for releasing secret info? Well, the person who IS responsible for releasing it is the person who possesses it, obviously. >Obviously the government isn't going to release any if they can help it, and people >like ASSange want to release everything. Probably true. If, as is usual here on SC, only one of those two extremes is even under consideration, I'd go with releasing everything rather than total secrecy. Sunshine has a beneficial effect on government in general. Thankfully we don't have to go to either extreme. I believe people have a right to know when their government is behaving badly, and I also believe that for a government to provide adequate security for it's interests a certain amount of secrecy is neccessary. I don't believe there will ever be a concensus on the grey area in between.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #184 February 10, 2011 I have people here that stood up at City Council meetings in Zephyrhills and bellowed rather loudly "Martin Luther King Jr DIRECTLY caused the deaths of American soldiers". This was about 5-6 years ago. Yes there are people out there with pretty fucked up views. Amazing huh? That guy has the same freedom of speech rights as Julian Assange.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #185 February 10, 2011 QuoteI have people here that stood up at City Council meetings in Zephyrhills and bellowed rather loudly "Martin Luther King Jr DIRECTLY caused the deaths of American soldiers". This was about 5-6 years ago. Yes there are people out there with pretty fucked up views. Amazing huh? That guy has the same freedom of speech rights as Julian Assange.... It has nothing to do with freeedom of speach. But I guess your one of those who think freedom comes with no restrictions.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #186 February 10, 2011 QuoteSo even governments cannot really concur or agree on what secrets ought to be kept secret and it changes with the political tides. imagine that, different perspectives.....! Wow, what a cool country we live in! Absolutely, and if you read the executive orders this paragraph is talking about (the latest of which I linked to earlier in the thread, previous versions are referenced from there) you will note what things both sides agree on as valid reasons to classify things. Hint: amongst them are most dealings with foreign governments. QuoteWow, even the Congress though it was important to LIMIT secrets...... again Bravo! pointless, I will just end up quoting the whole damn thing eventually. But thanks for helping to make my other points even more valid. What? The reason I posted this article is because you claimed the government had no constitutional authority to keep secrets or to decide what should be secret. All three branches of government disagree with you as you're noting in your excerpts. I guess I'm not sure what points of yours you're talking about any more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #187 February 10, 2011 Quoteum, the headline said: "Top military official: WikiLeaks founder may have 'blood' on his hands" It still did not name anyone that had been harmed. Listen. Bottom line, if there was any damage done, fer sure FOX news and Glenn Beck would have dug it up by now and broadcast it all over the world. (well, at least their world) I understand the possibility of harm. I think Wikileaks probably did a pretty good job of vetting the info before they put it out. It seems that they are consistently doing that and it seems that the results are also consistent in that no one is being harmed. Show me that harm came to someone and I will probably change my opinion. (not I do not mean harm because some govt official or politician got embarrassed either) "Pretty good job" doesn't cut it if CNN still found names of informants and people under surveillance as indicated in the article. If you're unable to see that as harmful unless someone fedexes you a head for your personal examination then this conversation is over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #188 February 10, 2011 QuoteBut I guess your one of those who think freedom comes with no restrictions. Freedom with restrictions is not freedom at all. It is merely a leash with a few more inches to roam. Quote from the movie Easy Rider: "Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.""...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #189 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut I guess your one of those who think freedom comes with no restrictions. Freedom with restrictions is not freedom at all. It is merely a leash with a few more inches to roam. Worth repeating.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #190 February 10, 2011 Quote I've already said...maybe you missed it... - that i am not opposed to exposing illegal activity on part of the government. You're twisting yourself into knots here. Exposing illegal activity is OK...hmmmmmm...so those docs released that exposed illegal activity are OK when they jeopardize the crooks and their respective g'ments, even when it happens to be your own? That's not what you've been saying all along. Quote What I am opposed to is the indiscriminate release of documents by somebody who should not have them to begin with. Don't you realize that the people who should have them are the ones doing the underhanded bullshit and only a blooming idiot* would release the stuff that's going to crush his nuts? *(OK, I concede the point that we are talking about U.S. g'ment here) Quote It is not up to ASSange what secrets of the US should be made public and which ones shouldn't. ASSange Give me a break, dude. We're trying to have an adult conversation here. Who is it up to then? The perps? NY Times? Nobody?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #191 February 10, 2011 Quote "Pretty good job" doesn't cut it... Well, here we go with the absolutist whining again.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #192 February 10, 2011 QuoteI have people here that stood up at City Council meetings in Zephyrhills and bellowed rather loudly "Martin Luther King Jr DIRECTLY caused the deaths of American soldiers". This was about 5-6 years ago. Yes there are people out there with pretty fucked up views. Amazing huh? That guy has the same freedom of speech rights as Julian Assange.... Wait - didn't you just agree that JA was not an american citizen? WHERE does he have the same rights?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #193 February 10, 2011 Quote Difference being MLK stayed within the law. All his speaches were above board and legal. All his rallies were legal and had permits. His marches had take the steps to be legal. He stayed within the law because he knew going outside the law would only give ammunition to those that opposed him. ASSange makes his way by breaking the law without regard to consequence for anyone accept himself. Did we come full circle? What law did he break? And how was it different with the Pentagon Papers/Ellsburg or the publishing of these 'stolen materials' by the Times or the Post? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #194 February 10, 2011 Quote I don't see anything in the constitution that guarantees your privacy. be that as it may, the Court has found such a guarantee and used it to strike down laws against contraceptives, pornography and abortion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #195 February 10, 2011 QuoteI don't see anything in the constitution that guarantees your privacy. The Constitution does not guarantee anything to citizens or persons. The Constitution does not even apply to citizens. It applies only to the Federal government on what it is allowed to do. The Bill of Rights, also does not apply to citizens as it's function is to tell the Federal government what it is not allowed to do. If most of you had actually learned the Constitution and the function of the Bill of Rights, back in 8th grade, you would know this."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #196 February 10, 2011 QuoteWow, even the Congress though it was important to LIMIT secrets...... again Bravo! "unless it falls into one of FOIA's exceptions" Wow, even the Congress thought it was important to PROTECT secrets...again Bravo!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #197 February 10, 2011 QuoteWait - didn't you just agree that JA was not an american citizen? WHERE does he have the same rights? foreigners do not enjoy the right of freedom of speech here in the USA? News to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #198 February 10, 2011 agreed, but like I said a few times in the thread, you and I just disagree on where the line is. FOIA exceptions are fine unless the guy setting those exceptions has another agenda, like torture or starting illegal wars for example Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #199 February 10, 2011 Quoteagreed, but like I said a few times in the thread, you and I just disagree on where the line is. FOIA exceptions are fine unless the guy setting those exceptions has another agenda, like torture or starting illegal wars for example So in other words - putting out potentially damaging information is ok when it's someone you don't like. Oh, and just to clear up something from upthread - "If Julian Assange or ANYONE else posted my PERSONAL information on a website, i would consider that an invasion of my privacy and it would be wrong." Given your support of O-care, you obviously have no problems with your personal medical information being disseminated through gov't and hence available to people like Assange to do whatever he wants with it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #200 February 10, 2011 that a pretty big 'hence' with a lot of assumptions that have no weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
