151–160 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may have been Assange (and WikiLeaks) goal when it was founded. It's hard to claim that's currently their goal, given that their push for "transparency" is limited to the USA (and occasionally the UK) ever since their site switchover back 5-6 years ago.
You're free to send them some North Korean secrets to publish.
The content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0], and having the USA force partners into accepting patent enforcement, copyright laws like the DMCA etc. are well known What is a little interesting is the negotiations and diplomacy at work. You can see how each country is trying to further its own position and interest. Looking at this version of the document, it is impossible to…
> The content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0] That's like saying that weather forecasts aren't interestings because the weather is public. The point is that we want to have a public discussion on these agreements before they are signed.
"The US wants this separate cause of action to extend even to cases where there is no copyrighted works" [1]
Even the DMCA only protects copyrighted works. The provisions of QQ.G.10 for example would make it illegal in enough countries to distribute dvdcss that linux would not play my DVDs.
Once implemented, this will have a significant impact on linux users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may have been Assange (and WikiLeaks) goal when it was founded. It's hard to claim that's currently their goal, given that their push for "transparency" is limited to the USA (and occasionally the UK) ever since their site switchover back 5-6 years ago.
Have you been to the Wikileaks site? There are plenty of documents/leaks on other countries. Why are you expecting to hear about them on US/UK media?
Did WikiLeaks ever leak the documents describing Ecuadorian network surveillance equipment they were trying to buy? It was leaked to WikiLeaks first but they, for some strange and surely innocuous reason didn't publish it. It was eventually leaked by BuzzFeed instead.
How about the promised massive leaks regarding Russia? [1] Not only have those leaks never panned out, but Assange now has his own TV show on the RT channel run by the Russian state, which is a far cry from how Russia described him in 2010, as a "petty thief running around on the Internet." [2]
If transparency, and transparency alone were the goal, I wouldn't be able to ask about these. But transparency alone isn't the goal. Assange has his own political agenda to push, Wikileaks is his instrument to do it (especially after he pushed out DDB). It should then not be surprising that when Assange's political ends were altered, that the focus of Wikileaks shifted as well.
[1] http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/30/moscows-bid...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not quite so simple as considering all leaks of government information heroic. For instance, would it have been heroic to leak news that U.S. code breakers had cracked enemy codes in WW2?
Like, for instance, that the Japanese diplomatic codes had been broken and that the administration had prior knowledge of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, yet chose to do nothing, because the public response would finally allow the U.S. to enter the war? Absolutely, it would have been heroic. It might have led to real justice instead of ruinous warmongering.
If allowing Japan to continue its (quite brutal) invasion of China is what you call justice, I'm not sure we are seeing eye to eye here.
Entering the war made a mess, but so would have staying out of it. The mess was already in motion, it was too late to avoid it either way.
This revelation proves Wikileaks is stil alive and relevant. I hope they see a renewed jolt of donations and interest. This is the organization of heroes that helped get Snowden to safety. Also, I'm getting sick and tired of our "leaders" attempting to legislate free speech and intellectual property in secret through anti-democratic means. It's disgusting. Edit: second paragraph
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you been to the Wikileaks site? There are plenty of documents/leaks on other countries. Why are you expecting to hear about them on US/UK media?
Yes I've been, and those leaks substantially date back to before the switchover I just described. In fact that was my point. They used to be about transparency and now they have a different political agenda. Did WikiLeaks ever leak the documents describing Ecuadorian network surveillance equipment they were trying to buy? It was leaked to WikiLeaks first but they, for some strange and surely innocuous reason didn't p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like, for instance, that the Japanese diplomatic codes had been broken and that the administration had prior knowledge of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, yet chose to do nothing, because the public response would finally allow the U.S. to enter the war? Absolutely, it would have been heroic. It might have led to real justice instead of ruinous warmongering.
Heroic how exactly? If the US had not entered the war when it did, the whole of Europe, and perhaps the rest of the world, would have probably ended up under Nazi control. There are many instances of Allied forces breaking codes but not acting on them, because to do so would have signalled to the enemy that their codes had been broken and the advantage would be lost. This comes back to my post further down, most indi…
It's true the US had an isolationist movement, and even business ties to Germany, but it would have eventually entered the war against Nazi Germany. After all, it was already supporting its allies (UK, Soviet Union, etc) via materiel through the Lend-Lease program, before the attack on Pearl Harbor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-lease )
Also, without wanting to diminish the participation of the US in the war, most of the effort was done by other countries, such as the Soviet Union.
Doubtless the final shape of Europe would have been different if the US had entered the war later, but Germany would have been defeated anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes it is simple. You are implying that there was a good vs evil paradigm with WWII which is completely a USA fallacy. Both sides were being funded by the central banking cartel. Do you actually think there would be any difference if you were living under Nazi control or not? Look at all the astroturfing of the phrase "6 million Jews" in WWI before Hitler even came in to power.
Kind sir, we appear to have run out of Nazi extermination camps. However, I invite you to book a one-way trip to North Korea. I hear their concentration camps are wonderful this time of the year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Bombing_North_Korea
"As a result, almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its hard for me to think of an answer to this question that doesn't somehow devolve into an area of 'conspiracy'-type BS. I really do not know.
Why are alternatives to the current mainstream stories have to be 'devolving' into anything?
OTOH - the mainstream media is not reporting on this at all. Doing a search for 'trans pacific partnership' on CNN - the first result is a story about the G-20 Summit on Jul. 15th.
The more you look at, investigate and try and understand this story the crazier you may seem to other people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Congress pass legislation saying that it's not allowed to amend trade agreements? Why don't they just not amend trade agreements?
We're talking about the several-hundred-member body of people whose very job is to argue with each other? The one whose membership is up for modification every few years? The one whose purpose it is to create rules that persist across changes in membership? That Congress?