141–150 of 211 posts
This issue is the result of what you could consider a natural process as access to information becomes more efficient. Just an observation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) It's difficult to gauge the general sentiment, but as you say a lot of people have got het up. I see that as a good thing personally. 2) That's a good point. Wikileaks has the potential to leak material which is more damaging than it is beneficial. The question is if you think that risk is worthwhile. I do. 3) Anarchy encompasses a wide variety of political thought. You are being reductive. Besides, there is nothi…
1) I don't think this is a good thing overall, but I am happy people are angry. When the Afghan intelligence services kill Assange, we'll know how far you can push folks. That'll heat some up more -- maybe enough for things to change. 2)I believe the question you are asking me is "Do you think that some random schmuck on the internet should have the power to decide what remains secret and what doesn't?" For which I h…
How can a constitutional amendment help, unless it's backed by a threat? The powerful have repeatedly shown that they don't respect the rule of law. It's a pleasant fiction. It's just not the way the world works.
You can't realistically expect those in power to modify their behaviour to your liking unless you somehow have power over them.
You can't realistically take on an establishment (if that's your thing) by playing by their rules. There has to be an element of threat, which will appear reckless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Theres nothing wrong with pointing out that one way is just as bad as the status quo. Neither way is perfect - but that's far different from your equivocation. "Hundreds of people" possibly identified through the Wikileaks release pales in comparison to the tens or hundreds of thousands collaterally killed by the U.S. military.
Unless you can prove that the military is unnecessary and their absence would not prevent more bloodshed than they cause then I would say my equivocation is right on the money. So to echo the previous poster do you have an alternate solution to the military that doesn't involve an impossible mass change to the entire worlds mental and emotional state. The military is an unfortunate but necessary evil that involves bl…
Your rationality rationalizes 100% war 100% of the time. I cannot prove that any person in some location is not planning on attacking, therefore, by your logic, all people are better off dead - for my safety.
Clearly that rationality is illogical.
Specific to the point you were attempting to make previously, however: you cannot prove that the possible identification of hundreds of people is equal to the known death of tens of thousands of people, though you claim they are equal. In fact, a sane analysis of the two points shows that they are not equivalent.
I laughed when the author cited a US law claiming the United States' ability (specifically the FBI) to legally violate international law . That's like me citing my own personal law that says I may legally violate state laws and burglarize any house I want to.
The point is that states sometimes need to do these dirty things, but they shouldn't try to make retarded legal arguments to justify them. Yeah, it's illegal. Okay, so use your special forces and shut up already.
Actually, I believe my exact words were "It's like saying that the Sovereign of Sovereignia can ass-rape anyone he chooses, because there's a Sovereignian piece of paper that says it's okay."
From Wikileaks, I mean Wikipedia:
Marc A. Thiessen (born 1967) served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush (2004–2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2004). He is the author of the 2010 New York Times bestselling book, Courting Disaster.
"Thiessen's first book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" - I think the title is probably all you need to know about him and the book.
"...a former military interrogator, and author of How to Break a Terrorist, characterizes Thiessen's book as "a literary defense of war criminals"
"...many Catholic thinkers strongly disagree with Thiessen's assertion in the book that waterboarding is permitted by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." Emphasis Added
"Thiessen's promotional tour for Courting Disaster included a confrontational interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour and an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show"
Man if he is shouting at John Stewart, you know the guy is evil.
He is all that I and am sure most Americans by their univocal rejection of the last government despise. He stands for all that made the last decade so dark. He is the f* criminal.
Now as to the article. I am amazed. Override International Law? What on earth! What is he somewhat superior than everyone else? Does he think the US is so great that it can afford to pick a fight with freaking Europe? Or is International Law applicable only to others, or is law for that matter applicable only to others?
Man this guy is not only Evil, but an enemy of the people. If the Devil did exist and took the form of man, it would resemble him like a mirror image.
What I think everybody has lost site of is that Afghanistan, pre 9-11, was a country that facilitated an environment that allowed people who would normally be local village thugs to turn into James Bond villains that rammed airliners into buildings on the other side of the planet killing thousands of civilians drinking their morning lattes. The Afghan war was most certainly not a war of colonial aggression or some bu…
For someone seemingly so versed in the issue, I'm surprised of two things:
1- That you're apparently unaware that there are two primary schools of thought re: anti-terrorism. One is grand military force and the other is investigative tactics. The former is nearly beyond cost prohibitive (some might argue it IS cost prohibitive), of a highly questionable efficacy, and results in orders of magnitude more civilian deaths than the instigating cause (9/11). The latter has been demonstrated to be highly effective at preventing attacks.
2- That you're equally unaware that the killing of families in far off lands results in an increased number of surviving family/friends who take up arms in opposition to those responsible. There is now a wealth of information spanning years detailing the primary motivating factors of insurgents, most of which revolves around revenge for the death of family/friends and little of which has anything at all to do with Caliphates.
And lastly, it is the definition of naive to believe that "we're not getting any material benefit" from the war. You may not be, but many corporations have massive financial benefits and most politicians have re-election benefits (both pro-war and anti-war politicians, though primarily the pro-war variety).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance…
>> Specific examples would be great. We don't even need 1 person to die from stupid non-sense like this. I understand that we need transparency, but you are not playing a game right now. The probability of a death related to 'leaks' just magnified. There is no denying that. Considering I served in this war, what doesn't absolutely need to be said shouldn't be said at this time. It's like we're playing russian roulett…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please. Calling soldiers shooting children murderers doesn't mean I like the Taliban, it means I don't want our soldiers murdering children. Really, this isn't complicated. The Taliban might have been evil, but it doesn't mean that the replacements will be any better. As near as anybody who isn't a jackass can tell, the US has inserted ourselves into a pair of century (millenia?) long sectarian conflicts. Government…
You're right. Calling people who shoot children murderers doesn't make you a supporter of the Taliban.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you know the identity of your informants was compromised, you should remove them from the field immediately. If you don't, it's at least 50% your fault when they get killed. Keep in mind the US government knew what documents would be leaked before the Taleban could get access to them.
OK. It's 50% the US's fault if people get killed. What's your point? Note well: people are likely to be killed who aren't actually informants. Death squads don't do due process.
I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…
I am growing by the day to learn that the united state has become or maybe always was a Phireha (I can't quite find the spelling of the word). The opinion formers there are so poisonous and it seems quite effective. The atmosphere also is contaminating and very divisive. A "commentator" there has the freedom to say any lie whatever, even blatant lie. It is, or at least the impression, is awful.
Now to the business at hand. I suppose much of the above paragraph was aimed at your first point "the people". These are the same people who voted Bush back in 2005. Among them there is probably a good deal of people who want freaking Palin for president. Who probably have no idea whatever what is contained in those leaks, hardly have read them - has anyone? - and well the commentators are not called opinion formers for no reason, they have formed the opinions of these people.
How on earth can people who "are not normally angry with anybody" be so - not angry - no, no not cuddling angry - not angry in the - lets go and protest in the student union way - after which point I thought you were gone follow with but out on the street seeking for blood - but how on earth can these very nice people who are so unbothered about such things as going to an illegal war - that is Iraq - re-electing the person who took them to war - that is bush - put up with Mr Guitmo, be fine with the comments of Mr Thiesen that they can just override international law - but not fine at all with being told that their government has actually been lying a lot to them.
You see Pakistan apparently is our ally. That is what we are told, and nothing else, so I thought that Pakistan is a good guy, helping us you see, I did not know that they are engaged in some sort of double game, playing nicely with both sides.
Maybe the public shouldn't know that. Why bother them right? Its not like the "commentators" can make them think day is night.
But let us move on. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said what was described in a newspaper that we all knew this - though I did not know - he said it in public, he said - Pakistan is playing nicely with the terrorists. Do you know what happened? Oo, people got angry, The Ministry of Truth, that is the Foreign Ministry, said you can not say things like that, you have to be diplomatic, that is, not say it in public, lest the little children are worried.
Its a joke! The whole response to the leak, which has been slowly building up, is a joke. But beyond this joke, something is actually happening. Although the White House might say there is nothing new here, and then go on to say, but hey man this not new thing is very damaging, a lot is new, and I think decisively new.
Besides all the sarcasm I used with the PM event, there is actually great power from words coming from his mouth. Now everyone knows what we supposedly all knew - yet I did not know and I am very certain the general public did not ether - that Pakistan is playing a double game.
Also, we get the president of Afghanistan saying it clear and bluntly - or was it perhaps some official from Pakistan "getting back" to the PM - that Afghanistan is a mess and the coalition forces are really just making a mess and nothing is getting anywhere and basically you guys are rubbish - that is the US, UK etc.
So, a new awareness is slowly but decisively shifting the opinion of "the people" against this war and just want us to get out.
Now in regards to secrecy. Without the names of the informers - which in defence to wikileaks how are they to know that they are informers - is there anything else that deserves the secrecy in those leaks? If not, then why were they kept secret in the first place? To save embarrassment perhaps - it was the previous guy who dun it not me - or just to keep the public misinformed or uninformed about things which the public is supposed to authorise through the general elections.
Sure you need some secrecy, wikileaks says that they did take much information out of the leaks which they considered worthy of being kept secret and had the knowledge to arrive at such consideration, but many things should not be kept secret, especially by the government.
Finally, why does the way Julian presents himself have anything to do with anything? Are you perhaps a bit jealous that the guy has managed to acquire so much power and is actually quite intelligent to have done so?
Also, why is it not the way to make it happen? I think to the contrary, when you get people really angry when you expose the truth then you know full well that it is exactly the way to make it happen.