WikiLeaks largest classified military leak - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:36 AM   #316
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,260
Local Time: 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Please, don't try to convince people into thinking that the war in Iraq was in any way shape or form worse for civilians than World War II. Over 50 million civilians were killed in World War II compared with 100,000 in Iraq. Hell, Saddam's Iran/Iraq war or his murder rampage after Gulf War I against the Shia in southern Iraq killed far more peopled in the country than anything that has happened in total since 2003!

Wikilinks is nothing more than some stupid juvinile website attempting to be important by throwing shit at the United States, and the anti-American bigots are all to willing to fall in line! LOL
you do realise the US is not the only target of the leaks?
__________________

__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 02:37 AM   #317
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North Shore City
Posts: 41,162
Local Time: 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
you do realise the US is not the only target of the leaks?
please, don't be sensible.
__________________

__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 02:45 AM   #318
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,260
Local Time: 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
So in the UK having sex with someone while they're sleeping is considered consensual and therefore not considered rape? I don't know what really happened but that is one of the two allegations.

If that's the classification of rape in the UK (can't imagine that it is) well that is really f'ed up. I would also say that anyone who considers sex with someone while they're sleeping to be in any way consensual sex is seriously f'ed up. Condoms have nothing to do with that. That would be extreme and I'm not lol ing.

In the other case he's alleged to have 'forcefully' held her arms and used his bodyweight to hold her down to "have sex" with her without using a condom. Don't know exactly what the UK law says about that.

You were talking about the classification of the allegations against him and that's what I'm talking about, nothing more.
i don't know how accurate those details are, as there is a lot of misinformation being bandied around the web, but it was apparently classed as "consensual sex" on the basis of the Swedish allegations... the case was also thrown out by a Swedish prosecutor several months ago as well... it just seems weird to me that it has suddenly been conveniently reopened...

wikileaks and alleged rape are two different issues altogether - it is possible to condone one and not the other...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 02:46 AM   #319
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,260
Local Time: 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
please, don't be sensible.
oops sorry...

(trying not to lol as it does not seem to be permitted in this thread, not even infuriated or exasperated or head-smacking lol-ing it seems)
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 02:51 AM   #320
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North Shore City
Posts: 41,162
Local Time: 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
oops sorry...

(trying not to lol as it does not seem to be permitted in this thread, not even infuriated or exasperated or head-smacking lol-ing it seems)
WikiLeaks: US Govt Slams Kevin Rudd On Asylum Seekers

yeah, they're all out to get the americans.
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 03:17 AM   #321
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,260
Local Time: 12:08 AM
bit of a worrying article... normally the US Espionage Act could not be used against Assange as he is not a US citizen - i don't know how it could be used to target WikiLeaks as wouldn't the "offence" have had to have been committed on US soil? unless they prosecute the New York Times for publishing the information... (aside from Manning, obviously...)

surely this should be a huge concern for all US citizens whether they agree with wikileaks or not, no??


Quote:
A sad day for the US if the Espionage Act is used against WikiLeaks

Resurrecting the 1917 law would be a mistake: it has a history of being used to suppress dissent

Stephen M Kohn
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 December 2010 17.08 GMT

Numerous US officials are calling for a resurrection of the US Espionage Act as a tool for prosecuting WikiLeaks. The dusting-off of the old law is all but certain. But the outcome of the constitutional dust-up that is sure to follow will result in triumph or tragedy for the US bill of rights.

In 1917, in the midst of a war hysteria, the United States passed the Espionage Act. The law has nothing to do with prosecuting spies. From its inception, it had everything to do with suppressing dissent. The Great War was unpopular with many Americans, very like today's engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Make no mistake about it. The Espionage Act targeted political dissidents. Senator Kenneth McKellar of Tennessee offered a simple defence of the law when it was introduced to Congress: "If we cannot reason with men to be loyal, it is high time we forced them to be loyal." Others, such as Congressman William Green of Iowa, were more blunt. His statement resembled modern calls supporting the execution of the suspected WikiLeaks "whistleblower" Bradley Manning: "For the extermination of these pernicious vermin no measures can be too severe."

The Espionage Act wreaked havoc on the American political left, destroying the young American Socialist party and one of its most progressive unions, the Industrial Workers of the World. Many others, including intellectuals, journalists, film producers and pacifist religious figures were also prosecuted. Prison terms were long, and some political prisoners died in federal jails. The abuses under the law were legendary, and mark a sad day in US history.

Why is the threat to prosecute WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act so potentially destructive? The law is not restricted to properly prohibiting the release of classified information. The law is not restricted to protecting legitimate government secrets. The law broadly prohibits any publication by anyone (newspapers included) of information related to national security, which may cause an "injury to the United States".

Who determines whether national security is actually at stake? Who determines what constitutes an "injury to the United States"? In 1917 the courts bent over backwards to permit the justice department to indict and prosecute thousands of dissidents. Loyalty to America meant nothing. The first amendment's protections for freedom of speech were mocked. Opposition to US war policies dictated who was jailed.

There are responsible mechanisms policing truly abusive leaks. The Espionage Act is not such a tool.

The attorney general should stop trying to resurrect the Espionage Act, and instead dust off his copy of the US constitution. If he has any question as to the meaning of the first amendment, he should read James Madison's 1789 speech, in which he introduced the bill of rights in the first Congress of the United States: "Freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 04:30 AM   #322
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,287
Local Time: 05:08 PM
espionage? oh jesus christ.

Quote:
"If we cannot reason with men to be loyal, it is high time we forced them to be loyal."
i know this isn't something someone said now, but as the article points out this is certainly the gist of what people are saying. i have to be honest, shit like this scares the crap out of me way more than anything another country could throw at us.

Quote:
The attorney general should stop trying to resurrect the Espionage Act, and instead dust off his copy of the US constitution. If he has any question as to the meaning of the first amendment, he should read James Madison's 1789 speech, in which he introduced the bill of rights in the first Congress of the United States: "Freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."
exactly.
__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 04:42 AM   #323
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,260
Local Time: 12:08 AM
something a little bit more light-hearted to keep some perspective...

Quote:
8.56am: So far UN general secretary Ban Ki-moon hasn't said much about the diplomatic cables, even though they revealed that US diplomats were ordered to spy on him.

Cables showed that diplomats were asked to gather biometric details on key UN officials.

Last night Ban made light of the issue by mildly teasing the US at the annual UN Correspondents' Association dinner.

AFP reports:

Ban started his speech, to an audience that included US ambassador Susan Rice, by flashing details such as "credit card number" "shoe size" and "ring finger 7.5" onto the screen.
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 06:04 AM   #324
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,460
Local Time: 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Ok, so you can CONFIRM for us that not a single person's life was endangered by the illegal leaking of classified US documents?
That is irrelevant and I have to confirm nothing. The only point is, Wikileaks is not senselessly, without any regard whatsoever, endangering lives for the sake of publishing.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 07:36 AM   #325
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 15,633
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I would also say that anyone who considers sex with someone while they're sleeping to be in any way consensual sex is seriously f'ed up.
Not really familiar with his charges or the facts of the case - so this has nothing to do with him - but I don't necessarily think this to be 100% true. Only because I can see the situation where an established couple who, say, lives together or is married, could be in a situation where one person wakes up earlier and starts to have sex with the other. I think it's a grey area (can you have prior consent? ongoing consent?), but I don't necessarily think that in that situation either party would consider it to be rape.

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 08:14 AM   #326
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,260
Local Time: 12:08 AM
the British high court has just upheld the decision to grant Assange bail...

WikiLeaks latest and bail appeal against Julian Assange: live updates | News | guardian.co.uk
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 10:35 AM   #327
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,287
Local Time: 05:08 PM
finally, some common sense.
__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 11:26 AM   #328
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
you do realise the US is not the only target of the leaks?
Of course. You do realise the United States is providing more than 90% of the forces and money in two major wars effect the security of the entire planet and the leaks involve classified information regarding these two wars. Can you name a country that had private or classified material leaked regarding a MORE SENSITIVE MATTER?
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 11:33 AM   #329
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
That is irrelevant and I have to confirm nothing. The only point is, Wikileaks is not senselessly, without any regard whatsoever, endangering lives for the sake of publishing.
So the fact that someone's life was endangered by the leaks of this material is "irrelevant"?

Wikileaks is taking private or classified information about wars and publishing it. That in of itself is senseless and wrong.

I seriously doubt that the majority of the military and civilian members of the coalition in Afghanistan are pleased that Wikileaks is making classified information available to Al Quada and the Taliban. The leaks certainly don't benefit the coalition and provide Al Quada and the Taliban information that they may not of found elsewhere.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2010, 11:36 AM   #330
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
espionage? oh jesus christ.


i know this isn't something someone said now, but as the article points out this is certainly the gist of what people are saying. i have to be honest, shit like this scares the crap out of me way more than anything another country could throw at us.


exactly.
Do you consider stealing someone's private information "freedom of the press"?
__________________

__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com