251–260 of 577 posts
[clears throat] USA killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians and is now jailing the whistleblowers [cough]
There is no peace movement, there won’t be ever again. Citizens will ignore the wars and entertain them selves by rage posting about either the red or blue team
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...
First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.
How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
News organizations wouldn't drop all the emails at once. Previous enormous leaks have been handled by ICIJ members with great care, going for years of investigations, careful verifications, and publishing only pertinent stories.
Why is that better than releasing all the emails at once? Why do they get to decide what's "pertinent"?
By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. Also, by ignoring the crimes revealed by the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, the US makes it very clear that war-making cronies rule both parties and would never hold each other accountable for anything. To be clear, the war logs revealed that the US classified information solely because it revealed that…
Well, Trump surely likes Xi/Kim the 3rd/Saudi Prince/Russia Czar dearly...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> essentially a Russian asset This is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Obviously a platform like Wikileaks can be "weaponized" by any party against another party. I think it's a question of what is the most relevant aspect of the leak overall, not who leaked it or why. For instance, suppose someone had leaked detailed information about the misconduct of Jerry Sandusky several years before it became widely known. Wou…
I think he is too dumb to realize he was used as a Russian asset. The attention whoring he is known for blinded him. While dumb, I don't think he has specifically kept secrets about Trump. His actions show a definite agenda. Act two, he just doesn't realize that it is someone else's agenda.
Where is the line? When is transmitting factual information to the public journalism and when is it not?
I never thought it would happen. He always seemed to stay a few steps ahead and he has plenty of of supporters and many countries that are hostile the US were willing to grant him asylum. I'm not sure how this would work. He would have to be kidnapped or given up.
He has successfully alienated anyone who ever supported him at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
News organizations wouldn't drop all the emails at once. Previous enormous leaks have been handled by ICIJ members with great care, going for years of investigations, careful verifications, and publishing only pertinent stories.
Why is that better than releasing all the emails at once? Why do they get to decide what's "pertinent"?
By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. Also, by ignoring the crimes revealed by the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, the US makes it very clear that war-making cronies rule both parties and would never hold each other accountable for anything. To be clear, the war logs revealed that the US classified information solely because it revealed that…
While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The military explicitly played a critical role in planning, leading, and executing this. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Opera... U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) and at least 6 members from JSOC planned it in coordination with the CIA.
Literally the second sentence of that article says: > The operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, was carried out in a CIA-led operation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Guccifer leaks are completely different from the WikiLeaks leaks. They have nothing to do with Assange.
From the recent indictment of the GRU Officers behind Guccifer: "Finally, on July 14th, Guccifer 2.0 sent WikiLeaks an encrypted attachment"