Wikileaks nomination for Nobel....

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Your right to know about illegal dealings of the US ends where my right to have my government's sensitive and legal documents kept secret starts.

You do not have such a right. Again, you might want to review the legal history around the Pentagon Papers. It also dismisses your silly notion that the press cannot publish based on sources with stolen documents. Whistleblowers also enjoy significant protection when revealing criminal acts, and can reveal such documents.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Your right to know about illegal dealings of the US ends where my right to have my government's sensitive and legal documents kept secret starts.

You do not have such a right. Again, you might want to review the legal history around the Pentagon Papers. It also dismisses your silly notion that the press cannot publish based on sources with stolen documents. Whistleblowers also enjoy significant protection when revealing criminal acts, and can reveal such documents.

No right? Bullshit. Try again.
Whistleblowers do enjoy protections when revealing criminal acts, as they should. But they do not enjoy the same protections when disclosing sensitive and secret documents concerning legal activities.

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.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

What you do not comprehend is, in a military situation, the potential to jeopardize the safety of personnel and/or the mission is a punishable offense.

First, I guess that means YOU should be punished because YOU have the potential to jeopardize the safety of personnel and/or the mission.
Do you see anything wrong with that?

Second, this is not a military concern. It is a civilian concern.

Quote

Assange is willing to harm others. You support him. Bad on you for bragging about supporting an enemy of the United States of America.

Let's turn it around and see how that fits...

The U.S. military is willing to harm innocent others. You support them. Bad on you for bragging about supporting an entity of the United States of America that's willing to harm innocent others.

Sounds, not-quite-right, eh?



OK...so none of the military-minded has replied, I'll put directly to you...

"And all you military people worried about somebody being exposed and killed on the espionage front on the one hand and then turn a blind eye to war's "collateral damage" on the other.

Hypocritical, maybe? "

How is the one OK and the other is a traitorous attack on the country?
THAT'S one thing I don't comprehend.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Second, this is not a military concern. It is a civilian concern.

PFC Bradley Manning, deluxe fancy boy, is in the U.S. ARMY. He leaked confidential possibly secret military communications or information to a whistle blower. Therefore, Manning is a military traitor. It is a military concern.

The whistle blower, Julian Assange, is an Australian citizen. Australia is an ally of the United States of America. He is a civilian traitor. He corroborated the military treasonous acts.

It is not a difficult issue for me to comprehend.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[champu 1]

Quote

And all you military people worried about somebody being exposed and killed on the espionage front on the one hand and then turn a blind eye to war's "collateral damage" on the other.

Hypocritical, maybe?

Don't know if you are referring to me here, but I'm neither "military people" nor one who has historically "turned a blind eye to war's 'collateral damage.'" Feel free to search these forums for numerous posts I've made about drones, COIN, or terrorists (for example) if you don't believe me.

Can I take your above comment to mean you disapprove of "somebody being exposed [and killed] on the espionage front"?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The whistle blower, Julian Assange, is an Australian citizen. Australia is an ally of the United States of America. He is a civilian traitor. He corroborated the military treasonous acts.

Even Bush's lawyer, the one who penned the defense for torture, would fail to figure out how to provide a legal framing for this steaming pile.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your right to know about illegal dealings of the US ends where my right to have my government's sensitive and legal documents kept secret starts.

You do not have such a right. Again, you might want to review the legal history around the Pentagon Papers. It also dismisses your silly notion that the press cannot publish based on sources with stolen documents. Whistleblowers also enjoy significant protection when revealing criminal acts, and can reveal such documents.

No right? Bullshit. Try again.
Whistleblowers do enjoy protections when revealing criminal acts, as they should. But they do not enjoy the same protections when disclosing sensitive and secret documents concerning legal activities.

Journalists do.

So, uh, let's see a citation for your right (or the People's) to not have federal secrets released. A part of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling would suffice. The Freedom of Information Act comes to mind, but it's not quite what you want, is it?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your right to know about illegal dealings of the US ends where my right to have my government's sensitive and legal documents kept secret starts.

You do not have such a right. Again, you might want to review the legal history around the Pentagon Papers. It also dismisses your silly notion that the press cannot publish based on sources with stolen documents. Whistleblowers also enjoy significant protection when revealing criminal acts, and can reveal such documents.

No right? Bullshit. Try again.
Whistleblowers do enjoy protections when revealing criminal acts, as they should. But they do not enjoy the same protections when disclosing sensitive and secret documents concerning legal activities.

Journalists do.

So, uh, let's see a citation for your right (or the People's) to not have federal secrets released. A part of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling would suffice. The Freedom of Information Act comes to mind, but it's not quite what you want, is it?

The Freedom on Information Act has limits, which pretty much backs me up. Or didn't you know that?
If that's not enough, read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/15/politics/main6682848.shtml

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.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

And all you military people worried about somebody being exposed and killed on the espionage front on the one hand and then turn a blind eye to war's "collateral damage" on the other.

Hypocritical, maybe?

Don't know if you are referring to me here, but I'm neither "military people" nor one who has historically "turned a blind eye to war's 'collateral damage.'" Feel free to search these forums for numerous posts I've made about drones, COIN, or terrorists (for example) if you don't believe me.

Can I take your above comment to mean you disapprove of "somebody being exposed [and killed] on the espionage front"?

Well, you aren't military so no, I was not addressing to you.

Yes, I am opposed to killing for any reason...even for those who "deserve it" as the self-righteous like to claim.

I have noticed that the military people to whom the comment was directed have conveniently bypassed the opportunity to comment on the hypocrisy.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

PFC Bradley Manning, deluxe fancy boy, is in the U.S. ARMY.

Nice of you to note that but the conversation is about Wikileaks and the right/wrong of publishing...civilian.

The prosecution/defense of Assange is in the civilian realm.

Constitutional debates here are in the civilian realm.

Quote

The whistle blower, Julian Assange, is an Australian citizen.

There's that pesky derivative of civilian again.

Quote

He corroborated the military treasonous acts.

WHOA! Military treasonous acts, you say?
What's wrong with THAT picture? Say it ain't so!!!!!
And you want to shoot the messenger?

Quote

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

That's all well and good. The problem is how you determine just who the enemy is.
Your posts read like your enemy is not the perpetrators of the "treasonous acts" but the messengers who blew the whistle, eh?

Sorry...I'm of a different mind on these things.


as an aside:
I can imagine that there are many people sitting in jail thinking, "Here I sit in jail. It's not my fault...I'm only here because some asshole snitched me out."

It never dawns on them that they are there because they did something against the law.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I have noticed that the military people to whom the comment was directed have conveniently bypassed the opportunity to comment on the hypocrisy.

Go ask that of Max or Scott or Matt and see if they tell you the military "turns a blind eye" to civilian casualties.

This is beneath you, Andy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[normiss 806]

When did hackers that simply copy and paste information sent to them become "journalists"???
What an insult.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Let's turn it around and see how that fits...

The U.S. military is willing to harm innocent others. You support them. Bad on you for bragging about supporting an entity of the United States of America that's willing to harm innocent others.

Sounds, not-quite-right, eh?



OK...so none of the military-minded has replied, I'll put directly to you...

"And all you military people worried about somebody being exposed and killed on the espionage front on the one hand and then turn a blind eye to war's "collateral damage" on the other.

Hypocritical, maybe? "

How is the one OK and the other is a traitorous attack on the country?
THAT'S one thing I don't comprehend.

I really hope I have missed the context of this.

I have been US Army over 26 years. We are trained to avoid non-combatant casualties. It is part of our mandatory training on Law of War annually. It is part of our prep to deploy. It is part of my training as a planner to avoid cultural sites, populated areas and all manner of collateral damage.

In practice, Soldiers routinely accept greater risks, injury and death to protect non-combatants. Our enemies use this against us regularly. Women and children are used against us because our enemies know it is in our nature to protect those weaker than ourselves. It is part of what drives us to do what we do.

If I understand this post and have not taken it out of context, I am more greatly offended than words can express.

I am sadly reminded that my enemies understand me and my brothers and sisters at arms much better than those we protect.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

When did hackers that simply copy and paste information sent to them become "journalists"???
What an insult.

How about "publisher?" Is that accurate enough for your liking?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Journalists do.

So, uh, let's see a citation for your right (or the People's) to not have federal secrets released. A part of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling would suffice. The Freedom of Information Act comes to mind, but it's not quite what you want, is it?

The Freedom on Information Act has limits, which pretty much backs me up. Or didn't you know that?
If that's not enough, read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/15/politics/main6682848.shtml

The FOIA is legislation. That it includes limits or not has no bearing on the question asked of you to show this right you pulled out of thin air.

[popsjumper 2]

OK...I should have been more specific.

I truly know that you guys as individuals try to limit the collateral damage whenever you can. I'll not argue that at all and I commend you for it.

Consider:
Bombing any town, let's take worst case....Dresden.
You may elect to choose any other case...say one in Serbia or Baghdad.

How about any other type situation where collateral damage is a consideration....there are many more.

Where are you on those things? How many military targets are neutralized and how many non-combatant civilians had to pay for it with their lives do you think?
Ahh...but that's Ok...We got the targets we were aiming for, right?

Yes, your enemies probably understand you quite well.
Part of that understanding involves the knowledge that entire cities might be obliterated at a secret, withheld from public knowledge decision, meeting by their politicians and military people.

Now...if those decisions were made public before the act, do you think the U.S. population would blindly let them go on....and on...and on? I do not. Lord help me if I'm wrong on that. As screwed up as things are these days, I still have a little faith in humanity to do the right thing.

Now that some off-the-wall things have been made public, you still want to shoot the messenger?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[normiss 806]

"one that publishes something; especially : a person or corporation whose business is publishing "
No, that's not accurate.

'Blogger' is about as close as you can get for a hacking (admitted illegally even) copy/pasting person at a keyboard with an internet connection.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Journalists do.

So, uh, let's see a citation for your right (or the People's) to not have federal secrets released. A part of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling would suffice. The Freedom of Information Act comes to mind, but it's not quite what you want, is it?

The Freedom on Information Act has limits, which pretty much backs me up. Or didn't you know that?
If that's not enough, read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/15/politics/main6682848.shtml

The FOIA is legislation. That it includes limits or not has no bearing on the question asked of you to show this right you pulled out of thin air.

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Did you even bother to read the link?

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Journalists do.

So, uh, let's see a citation for your right (or the People's) to not have federal secrets released. A part of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling would suffice. The Freedom of Information Act comes to mind, but it's not quite what you want, is it?

The Freedom on Information Act has limits, which pretty much backs me up. Or didn't you know that?
If that's not enough, read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/15/politics/main6682848.shtml

The FOIA is legislation. That it includes limits or not has no bearing on the question asked of you to show this right you pulled out of thin air.

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Did you even bother to read the link?

I see nothing in it that demonstrates your claimed right.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

OK...I should have been more specific.

I truly know that you guys as individuals try to limit the collateral damage whenever you can. I'll not argue that at all and I commend you for it.

Consider:
Bombing any town, let's take worst case....Dresden.
You may elect to choose any other case...say one in Serbia or Baghdad.

How about any other type situation where collateral damage is a consideration....there are many more.

Where are you on those things? How many military targets are neutralized and how many non-combatant civilians had to pay for it with their lives do you think?
Ahh...but that's Ok...We got the targets we were aiming for, right?

Yes, your enemies probably understand you quite well.
Part of that understanding involves the knowledge that entire cities might be obliterated at a secret, withheld from public knowledge decision, meeting by their politicians and military people.

Now...if those decisions were made public before the act, do you think the U.S. population would blindly let them go on....and on...and on? I do not. Lord help me if I'm wrong on that. As screwed up as things are these days, I still have a little faith in humanity to do the right thing.

Now that some off-the-wall things have been made public, you still want to shoot the messenger?

Severally and corporately, we go to great lengths to prevent the unnecessary loss of lives. I'm not sure why you hate the military, but I assure you that your paranoia is unfounded. Bad decisions are sometimes made. Mistakes happen. But it is the policy and practice of every level of the military to preserve life wherever we can.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Journalists do.

So, uh, let's see a citation for your right (or the People's) to not have federal secrets released. A part of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling would suffice. The Freedom of Information Act comes to mind, but it's not quite what you want, is it?

The Freedom on Information Act has limits, which pretty much backs me up. Or didn't you know that?
If that's not enough, read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/15/politics/main6682848.shtml

The FOIA is legislation. That it includes limits or not has no bearing on the question asked of you to show this right you pulled out of thin air.

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Did you even bother to read the link?

I see nothing in it that demonstrates your claimed right.

Then I cannot help you.
BTW, the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely states what the government cannot do. So, show me where the government prohibits itself from keeping secrets.

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.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

"one that publishes something; especially : a person or corporation whose business is publishing "
No, that's not accurate.

'Blogger' is about as close as you can get for a hacking (admitted illegally even) copy/pasting person at a keyboard with an internet connection.

I think the courts will disagree with you. They have recognized internet publishing a long time ago as a valid extension of traditional press.

Blogging would actually involve both authorship (writing) and publishing.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I see nothing in it that demonstrates your claimed right.

Then I cannot help you.
BTW, the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely states what the government cannot do. So, show me where the government prohibits itself from keeping secrets.

In short, you made it up.

Indeed, rights are not granted, but many are explicitly guaranteed. Like the freedom of the press.

but this nonsense about government secrets being your concern or right? You lack standing.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see nothing in it that demonstrates your claimed right.

Then I cannot help you.
BTW, the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely states what the government cannot do. So, show me where the government prohibits itself from keeping secrets.

In short, you made it up.

Indeed, rights are not granted, but many are explicitly guaranteed. Like the freedom of the press.

but this nonsense about government secrets being your concern or right? You lack standing.

I lack standing? Prove it. Just because a right is not spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it dosn't exist.
I have provided a link to a news article that gives examples of a judge and the SC upholding the governments right to keep certain papers secret, and the government belongs to, and IS, the people.
You guys are being very hypocritical in your arguments. You claim rights for yourself but deny rights of others. Nice touch.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I lack standing? Prove it. Just because a right is not spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it dosn't exist.
I have provided a link to a news article that gives examples of a judge and the SC upholding the governments right to keep certain papers secret, and the government belongs to, and IS, the people.
You guys are being very hypocritical in your arguments. You claim rights for yourself but deny rights of others. Nice touch.

sorry, no, you are not the government.

And sorry, your rights do not include "nothing bad should ever happen to me." Allowing gays to marry will harm married couples- the inmarried used to subsidize their tax benefits, now they have to share. But that doesn't mean their rights have been violated and therefore the Gay community can't have their own rights.