Wikileaks gets Pfizer

[WVUPharm2007]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hahahaha.

U.S. drugmaker Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against Nigeria's attorney general to convince him to drop legal action against the company over a drug trial involving children, the Guardian newspaper reported, citing U.S. diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks.

 

[RX CARE]

LOL....Whoever runs Wikileaks is about to be murdered for real! The problem is that they are still working on a plausible excuse as to how he died after they do it..😀😀

 

[pharm B]

This is the beauty of WL. I can understand why people are upset about the information that's been released, and the nature of the information, but stuff like what Mikey quoted is why many support WL and Julian Assange.

I agree with WL that it seems odd that PayPal, Visa, and MC have all made moral decisions not to allow their services to be used to send money to wikileaks, while they still allow you to support racist hate groups and porn sites. Why did they start invoking morals now?

 

[owlegrad]

This is the beauty of WL. I can understand why people are upset about the information that's been released, and the nature of the information, but stuff like what Mikey quoted is why many support WL and Julian Assange.

I agree with WL that it seems odd that PayPal, Visa, and MC have all made moral decisions not to allow their services to be used to send money to wikileaks, while they still allow you to support racist hate groups and porn sites. Why did they start invoking morals now?

Should they not allow you to support porn sites? What an odd concept. And why would you group them in with racist hate (redundant?) groups? One of these is not like the others...

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Wikileaks is like the ****ing Che of the early 21st century. Their actions are so polarizing in my mind. While I appreciate their philosophy and goals, sometimes their execution leaves a lot to be desired.

For every story about Pfizer doing this...or the American defense contractor in the Middle East organizing and participating in child prostitution...there are pointless stories like how the leader of Russia are like Batman and Robin...or about how the PM of Italy is a drunken frat boy. You have very important things of vital importance mixed in with stupid things that quite literally carry no importance, yet will cause problems with diplomacy. They need to learn how to sift through the pointless crap.

Also, they could publish documents from OTHER COUNTRIES rather than appearing to want to constantly discredit the US. I understand that everything leaked to them is typically from US sources...but I would imagine Americans would be more receptive if they picked on China or Russia.

---

But nonetheless, welcome to the brave new world. One were a few people with information quite literally can control the world. And one where those in power are trying to find justification to limit the spread of information. Crazy times we are in.

 

[TonyRx]

Wikileaks is like the ****ing Che of the early 21st century. Their actions are so polarizing in my mind. While I appreciate their philosophy and goals, sometimes their execution leaves a lot to be desired.

For every story about Pfizer doing this...or the American defense contractor in the Middle East organizing and participating in child prostitution...there are pointless stories like how the leader of Russia are like Batman and Robin...or about how the PM of Italy is a drunken frat boy. You have very important things of vital importance mixed in with stupid things that quite literally carry no importance, yet will cause problems with diplomacy. They need to learn how to sift through the pointless crap.

Also, they could publish documents from OTHER COUNTRIES rather than appearing to want to constantly discredit the US. I understand that everything leaked to them is typically from US sources...but I would imagine Americans would be more receptive if they picked on China or Russia.

---

But nonetheless, welcome to the brave new world. One were a few people with information quite literally can control the world. And one where those in power are trying to find justification to limit the spread of information. Crazy times we are in.

Agreed. It's pretty funny and interesting to see powerful establishment fighting wikileaks tooth and nail. They despise that all their dirty little secrets may be exposed. I feel that the public has a right to know how insanely corrupt their government and businesses are.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Should they not allow you to support porn sites? What an odd concept. And why would you group them in with racist hate (redundant?) groups? One of these is not like the others...

I think maybe you missed the point?. It seems to me that B was trying to say that it's odd (and maybe a tad bit hypocritical) for Paypal, MC and Visa to forbid users from sending money to Wikileaks when they allow payment for all sorts of services that some people might find morally questionable. How did they decide to take a moral stand about THIS issue in particular?

 

[owlegrad]

I think maybe you missed the point?. It seems to me that B was trying to say that it's odd (and maybe a tad bit hypocritical) for Paypal, MC and Visa to forbid users from sending money to Wikileaks when they allow payment for all sorts of services that some people might find morally questionable. How did they decide to take a moral stand about THIS issue in particular?

I got the point. I even agree with it.

Almost every group has some people who think their activites are morally questionable. It just struck me as funny that supporting racist hate groups would be comprabale to supporting porn, that was my only point.

The main point (that those groups are hypocritical to deceide that WL shouldn't be supported) is a valid one.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I got the point. I even agree with it.

Almost every group has some people who think their activites are morally questionable. It just struck me as funny that supporting racist hate groups would be comprabale to supporting porn, that was my only point.

The main point (that those groups are hypocritical to deceide that WL shouldn't be supported) is a valid one.

I don't think B was suggesting they are comparable. Only that they are both activities that certain people would find offensive. There are religious groups that believe use of pornography is a serious sin.

 

[owlegrad]

I don't think B was suggesting they are comparable. Only that they are both activities that certain people would find offensive. There are religious groups that believe use of pornography is a serious sin.

Haha, I really think you are reading too much into my reply. It was just funny to me to see porn and racism grouped together. That's all. But our back and forth kinda makes me want to debate this, so here goes:

There are religious groups who consider the use of contraceptives to be a serious sin. Belief in evolution is a sin. It doesn't matter what other people find offensive. Everything under the sun is offensive to some group, this shouldn't be a consideration for what VISA allows us to spend our money on.

I mean should VISA allow you to support anything and everything you want? Of course not (terrorism as an extreme example). But where should they draw the line? Racist groups? Porn? Wiki leaks? I still believe they are hypocrites, but they do have to draw the line somewhere. Just not at porn.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Another thing...I am very proud of 4Chan. They've hung out in the background...subtly forming and changing our culture through the countless memes they've engineered. Now they are finally, legitimately changing the world via their nebulous hacktivist wing, Anonymous.

Might this finally be the issue that has the stamp of our generation's leaders on the world? Is this the Tienanmen Square of the Digital Age? This is flat out civil disobedience. Nobody is getting hurt. The only losses are intellectual.

While I have mixed feelings on Wikileaks, I am 100% behind Anonymous. This *is* about free speech and the attempts of government at some sort of power grab over the internet.

 

[pharm B]

Yeah, I was simply pointing out some activities that people might find offensive. Funding the KKK isn't offensive to members of the organization, while it is to the other 99% of the country. Porn's a much less "offensive" topic, but like A4MD pointed out, there are groups out there who think that internet porn is a sign of the pending apocalypse, it's so bad.

My main point was that Julian Assange and his organization are not formally charged with anything RELATED to the wikileaks data dumps. Are the companies not letting people donate to him or his cause because of a sex charge?

I can still donate to John Edwards' any time I like.

The businesses I named are businesses, not suddenly moral compasses.

 

[pharm B]

Another thing...I am very proud of 4Chan. They've hung out in the background...subtly forming and changing our culture through the countless memes they've engineered. Now they are finally, legitimately changing the world via their nebulous hacktivist wing, Anonymous.

Might this finally be the issue that has the stamp of our generation's leaders on the world? Is this the Tienanmen Square of the Digital Age? This is flat out civil disobedience. Nobody is getting hurt. The only losses are intellectual.

While I have mixed feelings on Wikileaks, I am 100% behind Anonymous. This *is* about free speech and the attempts of government at some sort of power grab over the internet.

Someone I spoke to recently made a good point. When we talk about free speech, it's hard to do it in the same breath that we praise anon for taking down websites of opponents (visa, etc).

Does that mean I think it's wrong? Not necessarily. There are no black and white answers on this. What can people who support WL do, boycott visa? Or send a stronger message by screwing with them via DDOS attacks, etc?

I do know I appreciated the Chanology movement when the Church of Scientology shook their big ugly fists at 4chan and told them to keep the Tom Cruise crazy video off the internet.

Co$ opened a big ol' can of crazy.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

4Chan's work during the Iranian election protests were also rather impressive.

It's truly a phenomenon the world has never seen. Literally just a loosely affiliated group of computer nerds with a healthy mix of boredom and a sense of vigilante justice...and together, they are legitimately a force to be reckoned with.

...

And I don't think Anonymous is restricting free speech. Visa and Mastercard aren't exactly trying to "say" anything. They are just protesting against what they did by ****ing with their websites.

 

[rxlea]

I would support them if they took out all the credit bureaus

The credit bureaus have allowed the formation of the modern day caste system in America.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I still believe they are hypocrites, but they do have to draw the line somewhere. Just not at porn.

Why not? The Catholic Church and the LDS Church might think that porn is the perfect place to draw the line. It's all relative, isn't it?

I would say that we should be able to use Paypal, Visa, MC, etc to support any cause/purchase any product that is not illegal. That's where I think the line should be.

 

[pharm B]

And I don't think Anonymous is restricting free speech. Visa and Mastercard aren't exactly trying to "say" anything. They are just protesting against what they did by ****ing with their websites.

I agree with what you're saying, but censorship is censorship. If a website disagrees with your agenda and you shut them down, then you're playing the same role as the government right now.

It's a tenuous balance.

But you're right, Anon is impressive. It's literally an army of no one and every one, and you can't shut something like that down.

 

[owlegrad]

Why not? The Catholic Church and the LDS Church might think that porn is the perfect place to draw the line. It's all relative, isn't it?

I would say that we should be able to use Paypal, Visa, MC, etc to support any cause/purchase any product that is not illegal. That's where I think the line should be.

Perfectly reasonable. I agree completely about it all being relative.

I have to admit I am only passingly familiar with Wikileaks, but is what they are doing legal? I thought it was not.

 

[owlegrad]

I agree with what you're saying, but censorship is censorship. If a website disagrees with your agenda and you shut them down, then you're playing the same role as the government right now.

It's a tenuous balance.

But you're right, Anon is impressive. It's literally an army of no one and every one, and you can't shut something like that down.

And what is locking a thread?

 

[DYSF777]

Haha, I really think you are reading too much into my reply. It was just funny to me to see porn and racism grouped together. That's all. But our back and forth kinda makes me want to debate this, so here goes:

There are religious groups who consider the use of contraceptives to be a serious sin. Belief in evolution is a sin. It doesn't matter what other people find offensive. Everything under the sun is offensive to some group, this shouldn't be a consideration for what VISA allows use to spend our money on.

I mean should VISA allow you to support anything and everything you want? Of course not (terrorism as an extreme example). But where should they draw the line? Racist groups? Porn? Wiki leaks? I still believe they are hypocrites, but they do have to draw the line somewhere. Just not at porn.

This guy likes his porn.

 

[owlegrad]

This guy likes his porn.

I was wondering when someone would say something like this. 😆

 

[pharm B]

And what is locking a thread?

It's apples and oranges. This is a privately run website where we try to maintain a minimal amount of order, and we're really pretty hands-off at that. That would be like if we didn't delete all the spam posts. I can bring em all back if ya want.

Tasty spam 😍

 

[owlegrad]

It's apples and oranges. This is a privately run website where we try to maintain a minimal amount of order, and we're really pretty hands-off at that. That would be like if we didn't delete all the spam posts. I can bring em all back if ya want.

Tasty spam 😍

What a great reference! LMAO!

But aren't VISA, etc. private companies that have the right to decide who to allow support for? SDN decides what posts are allowed, MC decides who they will allow to accept their cards. It's a pretty fine line if you ask me. Not to mention that a spam post on SDN is legal at least.

Debate aside though, I am glad y'all try to keep us in order. Banning and locking are a necessary evil for sure.

 

[pharm B]

I agree VISA is a private company that can do what it wants, but it still must suffer the slings and arrows of criticism from the masses. I think WL doesn't have enough support for a boycott of VISA, MC, etc to be effective, but the DDOS attacks are a tangible, effective form of protest, performed by an anonymous army.

 

[owlegrad]

I agree VISA is a private company that can do what it wants, but it still must suffer the slings and arrows of criticism from the masses. I think WL doesn't have enough support for a boycott of VISA, MC, etc to be effective, but the DDOS attacks are a tangible, effective form of protest, performed by an anonymous army.

I don't know what that is.

 

[drhenPharmD]

I don't know what that is.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=DDOS

 

[owlegrad]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=DDOS

OK now, I didn't ask what it was, now did I? 😉

 

[Sparda29]

I agree with what you're saying, but censorship is censorship. If a website disagrees with your agenda and you shut them down, then you're playing the same role as the government right now.

It's a tenuous balance.

But you're right, Anon is impressive. It's literally an army of no one and every one, and you can't shut something like that down.

We are everyone and we are no one. We are anonymous, we are legion. We do not forgive, we do not forget. We are the face of chaos, and the harbringers of judgment.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY&feature=player_embedded#![/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjU8bZR19A[/YOUTUBE]

 

[charmacist]

Keep in mind that one of the cables showed that the US pressured Russia's government to amend a bill that would've been bad for Visa's and Mastercard's business in that country.

So that's probably why Visa and Mastercard no longer allow their customers to donate money to Wikileaks.

Visa and Mastercard clearly have ulterior motives and are entangled with the government.

Visa and Mastercard = government = suppressing free speech = deserves the opposition it's getting

 

[charmacist]

I have to admit I am only passingly familiar with Wikileaks, but is what they are doing legal? I thought it was not.

I fail to see how this case differs in any legally significant way from Daniel Ellsberg's release of Pentagon papers during the Vietnam War. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Daniel Ellsberg.

Basically, the Court said:
1) The government employee who actually released the documents had broken the law in doing so. In other words, the leak itself is illegal.
2) However, a journalist, citizen, etc. who obtained that information second-hand was free to distribute that information however they may choose, as long as the documents pertain to information that is of public interest. Government policy on the Vietnam War obviously pertains to the public interest, so it was legal to distribute the leaked documents.

This ruling is very relevant to the current Wikileaks case.

However, statists like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck have opined that Julian Assange may be guilty of espionage and/or treason. I think this is a weak argument: Julian Assange was not working on behalf of any other government or institution, so his actions probably are not espionage. Also, he's an Australian citizen, so by definition he did not commit treason against the US. Furthermore, his actions do not seem to fit the Constitution's definition of treason, which is one of the few parts of the Constitution that is very explicitly defined.

 

[owlegrad]

Visa and Mastercard = government = suppressing free speech = deserves the opposition it's getting

?

 

[pharm B]

?

I believe he's saying that there is a strong tie between the government and these businesses, as evidenced by the cables showing the US trying to pressure another country into prohibiting policy changes that would be bad for business.

The leak of the Pentagon Papers is the EXACT same kind of event. Charmacist is right in pointing out that Assange has NOT committed a crime (he didn't leak the info, he published what was leaked to him).

Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and the lot want his head on a platter. I'm sure if they're elected to high office, they'll definitely help re-establish our good name on the world stage.

 

[Pharmavixen]

I have to admit I am only passingly familiar with Wikileaks, but is what they are doing legal? I thought it was not.

Legal by whose definition? Assange is not an American, and Wikileaks servers are not in N. America.

When you hear the accusations that Wikileaks is "illegal," it's almost as laughable as Sarah Palin's accusations that Assange is guilty of "treason."

The US government's whiny reaction to Wikileaks looks more Chinese or North Korean than American.

 

[Old Timer]

Assange is not a journalist. He is a jerk off who prefers anarchy to order and and his ego is larger than humanly possible.

To compare this to the Pentagon papers is laughable. To compare Assange to a journalist is also laughable. He sits there and gets **** dumped in his lap and he posts on his website.

Whether he violated US law is for the US government to prove in a court of law if they have the balls and the evidence to back up their claims.

You can also note he agreed to pay for legal expenses for the leaker and for some reason the paper work has not been approved and no money has been transferred.

The US government is at fault for not protecting it's information better. Most of the **** he released is gossip and it only embarrasses other people and that makes Assange lower than a pregnant ant. When he released the National Infrastructure report that tells Al-queida what the status of security is at institutions all over the world he only endangered innocent people.

 

[owlegrad]

The leak of the Pentagon Papers is the EXACT same kind of event. Charmacist is right in pointing out that Assange has NOT committed a crime (he didn't leak the info, he published what was leaked to him).

When you hear the accusations that Wikileaks is "illegal," it's almost as laughable as Sarah Palin's accusations that Assange is guilty of "treason."

Assange is not a journalist. He is a jerk off who prefers anarchy to order and and his ego is larger than humanly possible.

To compare this to the Pentagon papers is laughable. To compare Assange to a journalist is also laughable. He sits there and gets **** dumped in his lap and he posts on his website.

Whether he violated US law is for the US government to prove in a court of law if they have the balls and the evidence to back up their claims.

Geez, at this rate I am going to have to do my own research and use critical thinking skills to draw my own conclusions.

 

[eeyore spice]

Basically, the Court said:
1) The government employee who actually released the documents had broken the law in doing so. In other words, the leak itself is illegal.
2) However, a journalist, citizen, etc. who obtained that information second-hand was free to distribute that information however they may choose, as long as the documents pertain to information that is of public interest. Government policy on the Vietnam War obviously pertains to the public interest, so it was legal to distribute the leaked documents.

Ex-friggin-actly.

Really, can anyone here honestly say they'd rather not know this stuff? That it would be better if all this (Pfizer's shenanigans, actions of a government supposedly of, by, and for the people) just went on quietly without anyone knowing about it? Would you prefer governments and corporations got away with murder?

 

[Old Timer]

Ex-friggin-actly.

Really, can anyone here honestly say they'd rather not know this stuff? That it would be better if all this (Pfizer's shenanigans, actions of a government supposedly of, by, and for the people) just went on quietly without anyone knowing about it? Would you prefer governments and corporations got away with murder?

What did you need to know about what the government did? That Khadaffi has a buxom nurse? That some diplomats have an unflattering view of foreign heads of state? That civilians are killed during warfare? You needed to know the list of assets and the level of protection at each asset and how vulnerable each assets is? So your need to know may allow al-queida to blow up an unprotected building or a lesser protected building and your need to know is more valuable than innocent human beings. You are an arrogant selfish ****-*** whose need for gossip, titliation, and self amusement is more valuable than human life.

And by the way, Julian Assange is not a journalist anymore than I am a journalist because I have a blog.

 

[Praziquantel86]

What did you need to know about what the government did? That Khadaffi has a buxom nurse? That some diplomats have an unflattering view of foreign heads of state? That civilians are killed during warfare? You needed to know the list of assets and the level of protection at each asset and how vulnerable each assets is? So your need to know may allow al-queida to blow up an unprotected building or a lesser protected building and your need to know is more valuable than innocent human beings. You are an arrogant selfish ****-*** whose need for gossip, titliation, and self amusement is more valuable than human life.

And by the way, Julian Assange is not a journalist anymore than I am a journalist because I have a blog.

Exactly. These nature of these leaks is no more than schoolyard gossip, but they are at a scale where legitimate government interests and, as OldTimer mentioned, national security may be harmed. There is virtually no "new" or "exciting" information contained in any of the leaks that have been released thus far.

In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the leaks (there was a piece in the London Times, I think) is that there is nothing new contained within them. U.S. policy in practice is pretty much dead-on to what is preached, down to the "naive" goodness-of-humanity type statements that no one typically believes.

Assange is nothing other than an insecure attention *****. He's not a journalist, he's not a freedom-fighter. He's a mouse trying to pass himself off as a lion.

 

[Sparda29]

What did you need to know about what the government did? That Khadaffi has a buxom nurse? That some diplomats have an unflattering view of foreign heads of state? That civilians are killed during warfare? You needed to know the list of assets and the level of protection at each asset and how vulnerable each assets is? So your need to know may allow al-queida to blow up an unprotected building or a lesser protected building and your need to know is more valuable than innocent human beings. You are an arrogant selfish ****-*** whose need for gossip, titliation, and self amusement is more valuable than human life.

And by the way, Julian Assange is not a journalist anymore than I am a journalist because I have a blog.

The government should tell when civilians are killed, be it accidental or intentionally. The names of the soldiers or government paid mercenaries who did it should be released, and they should be punished for their actions.

 

[torchbearer]

To compare this to the Pentagon papers is laughable.

I see no legally significant difference. Please explain your legal rationale.

The US government is at fault for not protecting it's information better.

Hm. The federal leviathan is incompetent and untrustworthy? Imagine that. Kinda reminds me of 9/11, a.k.a. Federal Failure Day.

When he released the National Infrastructure report that tells Al-queida what the status of security is at institutions all over the world he only endangered innocent people.

What has killed more people: Wikileaks? Or lying a naive public into a "war"? (I put war in quotations because Congress abdicated its Constitutional obligation to actually declare war.)

What did you need to know about what the government did? That Khadaffi has a buxom nurse? That some diplomats have an unflattering view of foreign heads of state?

As the government likes to say to us: If the government hasn't done anything wrong, then it should have nothing to hide.

We now have evidence that our government knowingly helped Uganda commit war crimes.

Russia probably knows where Ratko Mladic is hiding.

Shell oil company basically controls the government of Nigeria.

Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on UN diplomats. (Yet when the tables are turned, she somehow believes diplomatic secrecy is sacrosanct.)

Even if the revelations themselves are of no importance, watching the government respond has been amusing, to say the least. With each passing day, we see that our government is an out-of-control regime. Mordor-on-the-Potomac has eschewed the Constitution and the rule of law in exchange for "bully law" backed not by calm trial in a court of law, but by intimidation and fear. (See Joe Lieberman's threats to Amazon.)

Assange is nothing other than an insecure attention *****.

Even if this were true, it is not relevant.

Your government overlords (a) don't even know you exist, and even if they did, they (b) wouldn't give two ****s about you. So why jump to their defense, bowing down before them with such humble reverence?

It reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQozTxQSiE

"Many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

Stand on your own two feet.

 

[Old Timer]

The government should tell when civilians are killed, be it accidental or intentionally. The names of the soldiers or government paid mercenaries who did it should be released, and they should be punished for their actions.

It's not the government's job to do anything of the sort. It's the job of the government to prosecute soldiers if they commit a crime. Collateral damage is part of warfare as all war is criminal. Every time a civilian dies in war dies not need an investigation. Your position is naive at best and *****ic at worst.

 

[torchbearer]

Collateral damage is part of warfare as all war is criminal. Every time a civilian dies in war dies not need an investigation.

So you're saying that when a government agent/bureaucrat kills an innocent person, it's no big deal, BUT when Julian Assange hypothetically might have somehow possibly indirectly contributed to someone's death--maybe--by releasing government documents, then Julian Assange deserves scorn and condemnation?

 

[Old Timer]

I see no legally significant difference. Please explain your legal rationale.

I did explain, Wikileaks is not part of the "press". Any resemblance Wiki leaks has to the New York Times is coincidental.

Hm. The federal leviathan is incompetent and untrustworthy? Imagine that. Kinda reminds me of 9/11, a.k.a. Federal Failure Day.

This of course has nothing at all to do with anything. It's a straw man argument. It means nothing in the present discussion.

What has killed more people: Wikileaks? Or lying a naive public into a "war"? (I put war in quotations because Congress abdicated its Constitutional obligation to actually declare war.)

Of course, this statement is *****ic. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Even if I accepted your simplistically stupid analysis of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not absolve Wiki Leaks of responsibility for their actions. Or to put in a way your simple mind would understand, two wrongs don't make a right.

As the government likes to say to us: If the government hasn't done anything wrong, then it should have nothing to hide.

This again is simplistic and *****ic. We do have to hide and should hide the security status of US and friendly assets around the world and not give them to people who are trying to destroy us.

We now have evidence that our government knowingly helped Uganda commit war crimes.

You'll have to give me links as I have not read that. But based on what you have posted to date, I doubt it is accurate.

Russia probably knows where Ratko Mladic is hiding.

And this information becoming public makes it less or more likely Russia will reveal his whereabouts?

Shell oil company basically controls the government of Nigeria.

Again, what does this do for you?

Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on UN diplomats. (Yet when the tables are turned, she somehow believes diplomatic secrecy is sacrosanct.)

You have no clue what spying is or what spies do.

Even if the revelations themselves are of no importance, watching the government respond has been amusing, to say the least. With each passing day, we see that our government is an out-of-control regime. Mordor-on-the-Potomac has eschewed the Constitution and the rule of law in exchange for "bully law" backed not by calm trial in a court of law, but by intimidation and fear. (See Joe Lieberman's threats to Amazon.)

You of course have less than a clue about how government operates. I suggest you leave this POS country while you can. Your solution is anarchy. In fact you have no solution.

Even if this were true, it is not relevant.

Old Timer, your government overlords (a) don't even know you exist, and even if they did, they (b) wouldn't give two ****s about you. So why do you jump to their defense, bowing down before them with such humble reverence?

It reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQozTxQSiE

"Many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

Stand on your own two feet.

I can stand on my own two feet quote nicely. Since I have more than 2 functioning brain cells I am certain anyone who rambles on about government overlords has less than that.

 

[Old Timer]

So you're saying that when a government agent/bureaucrat kills an innocent person, it's no big deal, BUT when Julian Assange hypothetically might have somehow possibly indirectly contributed to someone's death--maybe--by releasing government documents, then Julian Assange deserves scorn and condemnation?

If you don't understand the difference between combat and journalism I would submit that it's pointless to have further discussion.

 

[Pharmavixen]

I did explain, Wikileaks is not part of the "press". Any resemblance Wiki leaks has to the New York Times is coincidental.

Two words: Judith Miller.

Interesting discussion 🙂 Question: if the nature of these leaks is "no more than schoolyard gossip," how is American national security threatened?

And the whole legality thing: how does American law apply to a non-American not living in the US?

 

[type b pharmD]

part of the press?

does wikileaks not do research and analysis in order to bring news and editorials to people via a public information medium? sounds like what the new york times is doing to me.. afterall NYT reporters go find sources, learn information, and write it up for public consumption. Assange finds sources, learns their information, and writes it up on his website.

Journalism's definition may need to be expanded in the age of the internet


I think Assange is childish and attention seeker, bigtime, and has VASTLY overplayed the importance of his leaks. Now look, we all enjoy and support news places like TMZ, and for there to be sometihng like that for political intrigue, i got nothin against that at all. But assange seems to keep coming across as like "look at me! look at me!!! im so cool destabilizing world governments!" but really that's not at all what he's doing.. which makes him an unsavory individual for lying in order to gain some idea of personal prestige or fame which is undeserved and ultimately people will realize he's just a hack and forget about him.

Also the fact that he is not responsible whatsoever for the fact that information was leaked from the government , i believe, absolves him of a lot of the blame for some of these "Crimes" he has been accused of.

Granted I see him as poser on the stage of internet badasses . There are way more hacker type people who deserve a lot more fame but dont bask in it like a high school publicity contest.

But I gotta at least support the fact that he is a 'badass' in some ways in the fact that he is willing to throw eggs on the face of the us government. Perhaps not a wise decision, but at least he is following his principles, whatever they are or however lame they are.

So i'm not "behind" assange in the sense that i believe he is working successfully towards a mission of social justice.. but . i am behind the original idea of wikileaks .. A place for people to find assistance if they are in trouble at work, in industry or government, and are preparing to make a whistleblower case. There need to be organizations to protect whistleblowers cause look at who they're up against...

On the other hand, bradley manning does not sound like a legitimate whistleblower.. just a kid who thought he wanted to become famous as a legendary hacker , when in fact , no real hacker would have behaved anywhere near how he did, especially for such a paltry collection of items. I did appreciate the videos of the mass murders in iraq though. Stuff like that that the government has kept secret, really should be told to the citizens given that we're funding this war, and that it is well known that there is at least a CHANCE that there may be some shady business going on over there

 

[Praziquantel86]

Two words: Judith Miller.

Interesting discussion 🙂 Question: if the nature of these leaks is "no more than schoolyard gossip," how is American national security threatened?

And the whole legality thing: how does American law apply to a non-American not living in the US?

I should have clarified: that statement applies to the majority of the leaks I've seen. The leak delineating targets of interest and security measures, however, is far more dangerous to have out in the open.

Not sure about the second question, I'll leave that to the lawyers. Maybe Assange will leak the court proceedings so we can keep up with it.

 

[pharm B]

I did explain, Wikileaks is not part of the "press". Any resemblance Wiki leaks has to the New York Times is coincidental.

The Air Force certainly seems to think they're cut from the same cloth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15wiki.html

Please don't click that if you're in the Air Force. You're not allowed to.

 

[type b pharmD]

Also im not sure if this is known to all of you .. But in the community that surrounds wikileaks, there have been people dissenting from assange's stance for nearly a year now if not more. People have told me that they are angry he is wasting wikileaks money on personal spending sprees, lavish lifestyle, partying, and globetrotting, also that he has gone too far in publishing the cables himself.

A core group of the wikileaks community programmers and supporters has split off officially as of last week to form a new leaks site where people can post leaks to the editorial staff, who ideally will help them find the right venue and recourse if possible in whistleblower cases, without revealing the information to the public unless a legal and appropriate venue can be decided upon. From my impression, this was somewhat the idea behind wikileaks when it started, but after assange became all high and mighty, he turned it into a circus to gain fame.

Source: IRC

 

[Pharmavixen]

People on both sides seem to be coming to the conclusion that Assange is a d-bag; that's what lead to the "rape" charges in the 1st place. When I read the accounts of the women pressing the charges, sounds like what Assange is guilty of is being a bad date.

That said, it also seems that the US gov't promotes "free speech" when it suits them, and when it doesn't, it's treason.