Wikileaks

RightinNYC said:

Fair, it's mostly the "I'm anti-western" that I think serves as a good proxy for "I support wikileaks."

Click to expand...

That is kinda a nobrainer though. If you are anti-western, you probably would support some one who is doing everything in his power to damage the west.

Redress said:

If you are anti-western, you probably would support some one who is doing everything in his power to damage the west.

Click to expand...

But you do so from the bottom of your heart for the betterment of mankind....or something like that.

nvm



10 char limit

Juiposa said:

What is your opinion on them?

Click to expand...

I think hes a jerk who tried to blackmail people and thus lost his moral right to keep publishing these documents.

I like wikileaks for it's prior activities, however, not so much for it's current ones.

Chappy said:

WikiLeaks is like all groups with a point of view; they can take things too far. But, I think their basic premise is correct — that the more we know the better off we are.

Click to expand...

democrats iunder RObert Mugaabe area being tortrued literallaly as we ****inug type right now thanik to s Wikilleakas outing them. are they abetteroff because Robert Mugabe knows more?

Juiposa said:

Part of it yes but not the whole. Majority is that they strive for transparent governments.

Click to expand...

:lamo by aiding terrorists and dicatotrs?

I think transparency is a damned good thing. I also think that the people that hate Wikileaks currently have no clue what the true definition of journalism is. Finally, it baffles me that across the isle folks hate this outfit without so much as lifting a finger to find out exactly what they do and what their goals are.

Democracy 101.

Manning should be the one who suffers - he leaked the documents originally. He is the traitor.

cpwill said:

democrats iunder RObert Mugaabe area being tortrued literallaly as we ****inug type right now thanik to s Wikilleakas outing them. are they abetteroff because Robert Mugabe knows more?

Click to expand...

Text messageing at 60 mph, cpwill ???
Please try again.

Juiposa said:

I am anti-western. I am an extreme leftist. Your point?

Click to expand...

If nothing else, it's amusing to see an anti-western leftist embrace/excuse the debris of collateral damage.

MaggieD said:

I don't support them releasing state secrets willy-nilly. I do support their latest endeavor...targetting those individuals and corporations who are evading Federal income tax and storing their booty in Swiss bank accounts. Bring it!

Click to expand...

I hope one of the targets of that idiot call in a cleaner on him

vauge said:

I think transparency is a damned good thing. I also think that the people that hate Wikileaks currently have no clue what the true definition of journalism is. Finally, it baffles me that across the isle folks hate this outfit without so much as lifting a finger to find out exactly what they do and what their goals are.

Democracy 101.

Click to expand...

If 1069 thought you were running a despotic team of mods and encouraged a disgruntled TOT to hack into the forum and pass her all the mod's private information for publication, would that be journalism?

Manning should be the one who suffers - he leaked the documents originally. He is the traitor.

Click to expand...

He should certainly suffer, I just think his possible co-conspirators should be punished as well.

RightinNYC said:

If 1069 thought you were running a despotic team of mods and encouraged a disgruntled TOT to hack into the forum and pass her all the mod's private information for publication, would that be journalism?

Click to expand...

The persons "hacking" were not affiliated with the persons leaking. Manning alone downloaded and submitted the leaks.

But, if there is proof there was a relationship between hackers and leakers, then no - that would not be journalism. For now, it is conjecture with no facts to base it on besides a gut feeling. Your argument is like saying Sarah Palin is to blame for the shooting in AZ because he listened to her. It holds no water.

He should certainly suffer, I just think his possible co-conspirators should be punished as well.

Click to expand...

I would agree if there was evidence of co-conspiracy.

vauge said:

The persons "hacking" were not affiliated with the persons leaking. Manning alone downloaded and submitted the leaks.

But, if there is proof there was a relationship between hackers and leakers, then no - that would not be journalism. For now, it is conjecture with no facts to base it on besides a gut feeling. Your argument is like saying Sarah Palin is to blame for the shooting in AZ because he listened to her. It holds no water.

I would agree if there was evidence of co-conspiracy.

Click to expand...

The relationship between Wikileaks and Manning was far more cooperative than the relationship between Palin and Loughner, namely in that the former corresponded while the latter didn't. Beyond that, I would wager that once all the details of Manning's actions come out in the open, we'll see that Wikileaks was involved in the leaking process to a degree that would support conspiracy charges.

RightinNYC said:

The relationship between Wikileaks and Manning was far more cooperative than the relationship between Palin and Loughner, namely in that the former corresponded while the latter didn't. Beyond that, I would wager that once all the details of Manning's actions come out in the open, we'll see that Wikileaks was involved in the leaking process to a degree that would support conspiracy charges.

Click to expand...

I have read nothing about wikileaks replying directly to manning - it went through a 3rd party. The 3rd party turned Manning in.

How much you wanna wager? Stike that - I am broke, but we will see.

vauge said:

The persons "hacking" were not affiliated with the persons leaking. Manning alone downloaded and submitted the leaks.

But, if there is proof there was a relationship between hackers and leakers, then no - that would not be journalism. For now, it is conjecture with no facts to base it on besides a gut feeling. Your argument is like saying Sarah Palin is to blame for the shooting in AZ because he listened to her. It holds no water.


I would agree if there was evidence of co-conspiracy.

Click to expand...

One of the key things with the whole WIkiLeaks is whether or not WIkiLeaks and Assange qualify as journalists. It is certainly a point up for debate, but I question if just owning a website is enough to make you a journalist. How exactly do you decide who is and is not a journalist, and that question is a very important one that we are going to have to answer in the near future.

Redress said:

One of the key things with the whole WIkiLeaks is whether or not WIkiLeaks and Assange qualify as journalists. It is certainly a point up for debate, but I question if just owning a website is enough to make you a journalist. How exactly do you decide who is and is not a journalist, and that question is a very important one that we are going to have to answer in the near future.

Click to expand...

Apparently the general journalism community has agreed that they are a journlistic outfit. Wikileaks has recieved quite a few awards for the work they have done....

AwardsAssange won the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Award.[7] He won the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media),[121] for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya by distributing and publicizing the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)'s investigation The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances.[122][123] Accepting the award, Assange said, "It is a reflection of the courage and strength of Kenyan civil society that this injustice was documented."[124]

In 2010 Assange was awarded the Sam Adams Award,[125][126] Readers' Choice in Time magazine's Person of the Year poll,[13] and runner-up for Person of the Year.,[127] and an informal poll of editors at Postmedia Network named him the top newsmaker for the year after six out of 10 felt Assange had "affected profoundly how information is seen and delivered".[128]

Le Monde named him person of the year with fifty six percent of the votes in their online poll. Le Monde is one of the five publications to cooperate with Wikileaks' publication of the recent document leaking.[129][130][131]

Click to expand...

wikileaks

earthworm said:

Text messageing at 60 mph, cpwill ???
Please try again.

Click to expand...

Morgan Tsvangirai is the prime minister of Zimbabwe, and the leader of the democratic opposition to Robert Mugabe. He has survived several attempts on his life, his wife was killed in an 'accident', and he was a hunted man for years. Finally in the last series of elections, the fraud as abusive and the international outcry enough that Mugabe had to bring him into government; though he himself retained control over the 'hard' functions (police, military, courts, etc). Only said international attention kept Tsvangirai alive.

Or, rather, Morgan Tsvangirai was the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. Apparently he had a private conversation with US diplomats telling them that while he personally appreciated the sanctions on Mugabe because they put pressure on the regime to liberalize, he couldn't publicly support them because Mugabe had successfully managed to paint them as "anti-Zimbabwe" rather than "anti-Mugabe". and Wikileaks apparently felt that enabling Mugabe to take out his opposition was beneficial to "openness". He has since been arrested for "treason"; and no one is precisely sure where he is being held. According to the Zimbabwe Mail "Wikileas may have just signed Morgan Tsvangirai's death warrant."

Meanwhile, the Taliban openly admits that it mines the Wikileaks site, looking for the names of locals who have helped ISAF to bring in schools, medical clinics, or secure their villages.... so that it can murder them and their families in the night.

REAL freeidom fighters suffer and die so that Assange can bask in the limelight of publicity and accept the applause and largess of the oh-so-edgy-and-like-totally-anti-system-dude crowd.

Kal'Stang said:

Apparently the general journalism community has agreed that they are a journlistic outfit. Wikileaks has recieved quite a few awards for the work they have done....



wikileaks

Click to expand...

It's not up to journalists to make laws in this country. The determination will be made first by the courts whether they are journalists.

The architects and sheep of Wikileaks are simply irresponsible pieces of **** that cause more friction between governments and peoples than would otherwise exist. The fact that other pieces of **** around the globe pretend that they stand for some rediculous struggle for "speech freedom" are likewise irresponsible and serve to encourage the friction.

Bureaucracy, mistrust, and uneasy collaborations between governments exist. Released documents that remind our governments of this and reveal private discussions underneath the public handshakes and nods only force these same governments to have to explain the unnecessary and to cnduct needless damage control to continue what are already touchy subjects and deals.

Only in the Western world will you find a people so willing to destroy everything that has been built in order to prove that their rights allow them to do absolutely anything and everything.

Redress said:

It's not up to journalists to make laws in this country. The determination will be made first by the courts whether they are journalists.

Click to expand...

Your concern has already been decided by the courts. Even a pamphlet is considered protected under the 1st amendment of "free press". If a pamphlet is considered a part of the Press then a website dedicated to releaseing news information definitly is. Also parodies of people are considered to be protected under the 1st amendment. If that is protected then why not a website?

I know that you hope that they will not be protected by the 1st amendments free press clause. But past judgements on the various forms of things that are protected under the 1st amendment easily shows that wikileaks will fall under the same clause.

Also you are wrong that the courts should decide on who is free press and who isn't. What would you say if the courts decided that the Wall Street Journal was not of the press? Or Time Magazine? Or any other news organization?

Kal'Stang said:

Your concern has already been decided by the courts. Even a pamphlet is considered protected under the 1st amendment of "free press". If a pamphlet is considered a part of the Press then a website dedicated to releaseing news information definitly is. Also parodies of people are considered to be protected under the 1st amendment. If that is protected then why not a website?

I know that you hope that they will not be protected by the 1st amendments free press clause. But past judgements on the various forms of things that are protected under the 1st amendment easily shows that wikileaks will fall under the same clause.

Also you are wrong that the courts should decide on who is free press and who isn't. What would you say if the courts decided that the Wall Street Journal was not of the press? Or Time Magazine? Or any other news organization?

Click to expand...

Is a pamphlet a website? Obviously not, so your makes assumptions that may not be true.

Kal'Stang said:

Your concern has already been decided by the courts. Even a pamphlet is considered protected under the 1st amendment of "free press". If a pamphlet is considered a part of the Press then a website dedicated to releaseing news information definitly is. Also parodies of people are considered to be protected under the 1st amendment. If that is protected then why not a website?

I know that you hope that they will not be protected by the 1st amendments free press clause. But past judgements on the various forms of things that are protected under the 1st amendment easily shows that wikileaks will fall under the same clause.

Also you are wrong that the courts should decide on who is free press and who isn't. What would you say if the courts decided that the Wall Street Journal was not of the press? Or Time Magazine? Or any other news organization?

Click to expand...

First Amendment jurisprudence is a bit more nuanced than this.

If a reporter for the WSJ committed a crime in reporting on a story, the fact that he's a journalist doesn't mean that he gets a free pass.

MSgt said:

The architects and sheep of Wikileaks are simply irresponsible pieces of **** that cause more friction between governments and peoples than would otherwise exist. The fact that other pieces of **** around the globe pretend that they stand for some rediculous struggle for "speech freedom" are likewise irresponsible and serve to encourage the friction.

Bureaucracy, mistrust, and uneasy collaborations between governments exist. Released documents that remind our governments of this and reveal private discussions underneath the public handshakes and nods only force these same governments to have to explain the unnecessary and to cnduct needless damage control to continue what are already touchy subjects and deals.

Only in the Western world will you find a people so willing to destroy everything that has been built in order to prove that their rights allow them to do absolutely anything and everything.

Click to expand...

Mistrust and uneasy collaberations are built because of dishonesty and dishonest acts. Perhaps those would not be a concern if people were more honest in thier dealings. What better way to force honesty than to expose the lies and deceit?

RightinNYC said:

First Amendment jurisprudence is a bit more nuanced than this.

If a reporter for the WSJ committed a crime in reporting on a story, the fact that he's a journalist doesn't mean that he gets a free pass.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If he committed a crime. Such a crime in this case would have to be in the form of conspiring with someone directly to get classified information. There is no evidence that wikileaks did this. Lots of supposition on the part of those that dislike wikileaks though. In anycase such a thing would be holding the person responsible. Not the organization itself. In other words while assaunge might be able to be prosecuted and even jailed there is nothing that could be done to legally stop wikileaks from continuing on with its objectives.