Sir_Wulf: Dealing with General Kilzlots is in every way a supremely bad idea. That's how secrets get made, and those kill. Say that you deal with him to achieve something in an area of interest that you have. He helps you, and in return you make sure Kilzlotsia gets money. He then uses the money you sent him to build more prisons for oppositional voices, buy more weapons, and tighten his control of the country. At that point, your involvement becomes a serious problem for you, so what do you do? You stamp it classified. That's why leaks are important, comprende?
At risk of encouraging argument, rather than harmony, I'd like to follow that logic to some absurd conclusions:
* The US shouldn't deal with Russia, as their government is in bed with the mob.
* The US shouldn't deal with (ANY ASIAN OR MIDDLE EASTERN NATION), as their government is also corrupt and their human rights abuses are often appalling.
* We shouldn't ally with nations who fail to adhere to the standards of democracy and justice our government was established to uphold.
* We can fairly ally with Sweden and Canada. They meet our standards. Australia might also be acceptable, if they clean up their act a bit.
Unfortunately, the ideal is the enemy of the good. Almost every nation in the world has some political issues we disagree with. Many times, we have the choice of dealing with someone we dislike or not dealing with anyone at all.
Additionally, if our government can't be trusted with other nations' secrets, they'll soon stop informing us of potential problems before they come home to roost.
I would suggest you look closer to home, if you want to feel sorry for someone.
Correct. Why do I waste time replying to arguments like:
Poster gripes: "My car sucks; the O2 sensor is out again."
Pres Man: "So all cars are obviously worthless and we should all go back to horse-drawn carriages."
Well, secrets will be impossible to keep if 2.5 million people have access to the database in which they are kept... SIPRNet is reported to be accessible by that many people. It makes me wonder why nothing leaked earlier.Don't be coy, secrets will be dificult to keep regardless and you know that.
And things have leaked out before. You don't seriously believe that this is the first leak we've ever had, do you?
The sheer number of supposedly leaked documents is astounding, earlier leaks notwithstanding. Indeed, it would be strange if there were no security measures as Sieglord describes. This poses the question just how this number of documents, which should not have been accessible to Manning at all, got out there. Supposedly, he smuggled them out of Iraq on CD. This sounds to me as if Manning might be just a small cog in the whole machinery.
...
At risk of encouraging argument, rather than harmony, I'd like to follow that logic to some absurd conclusions:
...
* We can fairly ally with Sweden and Canada. They meet our standards. Australia might also be acceptable, if they clean up their act a bit.
...
Alas it is not clear that we meet their standards. :-)
Seriously, Sir Wulf is correct. As much as I would like to see more idealism applied to US foreign policy, we've got to deal with scumbags sometimes. And when we do it is usually in our interest not to have full and frank disclosure of our opinion of them.
Makes you wonder what the whole deal was about the Valerie Plame situation. I mean if leaking classified information is a non-issue and nobody gets hurt, what is the big deal right?There are a few different things going on here.
Most of the stuff in the most recent WikiLeaks leak, the State Department communiques, isn't even classified. Most of it, assuming the government repository program is fundamentally the same as it was 20 years ago, would have made its way into government repository archives across the country. You can review tons of old State Department communiques conveniently bound together in your local government depository, for example. They do, however, benefit from a certain level of candor and confidentiality while still fresh and relevant. So their leak, while not what I would consider criminal, is still a shame, particularly since they most won't rise to the level of honest whistle-blowing on real illegal or otherwise shady activity. That's a major contrast with the Pentagon Papers, which were released when they were no longer current, with the help of editorial oversight from the New York Times, and detailed actual deception and illegal behavior.
There's also a question of information classified not because it's really damaging or truly secret, but because it's something the government just doesn't want to release. There are plenty of cases of over-classified documents, the release of which won't actually cause any damage.
The Valerie Plame leak came during ongoing covert programs in which she was involved and could, potentially, have compromised anyone associated with her. We may never know the full extent, whether large or small, of any fallout.
The differences between whistle-blowing, releasing non-classified but embarassing information, releasing over-classified information, and releasing classified information that affects ongoing, important operations are substantial.
+1
I just watched the "Collateral Murder" video on Wikileaks. In my opinion, this is nothing short of murder indeed. I can´t see how the guys in the van trying to rescue a wounded man pose any threat to american soldiers. It looked more like "hey, there are some guys running around, lets shoot ´em." If this was in accordance with the rules of armed conflict, these rules seem questionable to me. Opening fire on non-threatening persons is ok by these rules?
So, I think Wikileaks does indeed fulfill a necessary function in publishing things some governments would like to keep hidden because they show the government agencies involved in illicit activity.
"Opening fire on non-threatening individuals...."That statement implies a profound lack of understanding about how the world operates and why, I'm afraid. Journalists (or anyone else who speaks truth) are far more threatening than any amount of military force, as military force rarely (if ever) carries the weight of truth. The United States was (and is) intentionally targeting (non-embedded) journalists. This serves two functions...first, it limits the information available to the rest of the world and second, it provides the invaders with something else to blame on...anyone trying to resist rapacious imperial conquest. This is, of course, utilized by the conquerors as justification for their conquest.
Wow. At your first sentence, I raised my eyebrows and thought "what comes now?" But then, it went in an entirely different direction from what my first idea was. So you claim that the USAF are deliberately targeting non-embedded journalists? And they do this because they want to limit the available independent information on their actions? This is quite a severe accusation, as it would be a really tremendous war crime. This is too outrageous to believe just because someone claimed it, I´m afraid - I know I cannot easily believe that.
Journalists (or anyone else who speaks truth) are far more threatening than any amount of military force, as military force rarely (if ever) carries the weight of truth. The United States was (and is) intentionally targeting (non-embedded) journalists. This serves two functions...first, it limits the information available to the rest of the world and second, it provides the invaders with something else to blame on...anyone trying to resist rapacious imperial conquest. This is, of course, utilized by the conquerors as justification for their conquest.
So the AK-47s and 2 RPGs carried by men in the targeted group weren't relevant? That's how Julian Assange apparently feels...
"based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything ... Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area" (from an interview in April 2010)
Radio chatter from the aircraft that allegedly "murdered" these men indicates that the pilot mistook their camera for some sort of weapon: Spotting the cameraman aiming his camera around the corner, he remarked "He's getting ready to fire".
My professional experience has been that when someone is looking for trouble, those not involved tend to avoid the area. Since troops had been fired on by insurgents in that area, this leads me to conclude, as the US Army did, that the armed men with the Reuters journalists were insurgents. I could be wrong: It's just barely possible that they were just "protecting their area" as Mr. Assange asserted.
With RPGs.
Frankly, I'm tired of Mr. Assange's self-serving half-truths and I'm even more tired of people who only look far enough into the facts to find a "villain" (generally the US).
The USAF (United States Air Force) is deliberately targeting non-embedded journalists? No. USDOD (United States Department of Defense) is deliberately targeting non-embedded and non-affiliated journalists...it's a policy that goes all the way to the top (I'm not talking about the "administration"...I mean the people who actually run things...the plutocrats).
Sieglord, perhaps you might want to talk to more people who have been there. Your conspiracy theory just doesn't hold water. Frankly, our politicians and military leaders just aren't competent enough to successfully plot with such devious cunning.
I have been there...three tours so far (and at least two more to go...that means at least another four before my indef is up),
Interesting. Based on your stated background, I'm forced to allow that your experience supports your claims, but your statements and conclusions are worlds apart from those of the veterans I know personally.
I'd like for you to consider the implications of your statement. You consider the very rudimentary (I mean, basic, unsophisticated, sophomoric, and in every way childish) manipulations of a public too simple to understand what is going on "devious cunning"; while simultaneously asserting that our leaders are not competent enough to engage in such planning...
I consider fooling the public idiotically simple, but to maintain an ongoing campaign of deception becomes increasingly difficult as time passes. If the military had orders specifically targeting journalists, wouldn't those orders have been the first things leaked to the public? (and, yes, I remember the allegations that the US deliberately targeted a hotel holding foreign journalists during the invasion of Iraq. The evidence from that incident supports the conclusion that US forces acted to shut down enemy television and radio during the initial invasion. That's hardly the same thing as a continuing campaign to target independent journalists.)
do you really mean to assert that a group of IVY LEAGUE graduates, with educations and degrees you can't even spell, pronounce, articulate or afford are not...and I quote, "...competent enough..." Really? I mean...really?
You're making unwarranted assumptions about my intellect, my background... and my spelling. On the other hand, your assessment of my budget looks sound. ;-)
I've dealt with numerous politicians and federal officers over the years. I've seldom been impressed with their intelligence. Although there are some very sharp minds working for the Feds, they are substantially outnumbered by the career mediocrities filling the ranks.
Or did you mean to refer to mysterious puppetmasters, sinister figures manipulating events from behind the scenes to protect the profit margins of Big Business? While these people may be more capable than the bureaucratic minions of the Beltway, they would be forced to manipulate events through proxies, rendering it even more difficult for them to consistently maintain operational secrecy.
|
Journalists (or anyone else who speaks truth) are far more threatening than any amount of military force, as military force rarely (if ever) carries the weight of truth. The United States was (and is) intentionally targeting (non-embedded) journalists. This serves two functions...first, it limits the information available to the rest of the world and second, it provides the invaders with something else to blame on...anyone trying to resist rapacious imperial conquest. This is, of course, utilized by the conquerors as justification for their conquest.So the AK-47s and 2 RPGs carried by men in the targeted group weren't relevant? That's how Julian Assange apparently feels...
"based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything ... Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area" (from an interview in April 2010)
Radio chatter from the aircraft that allegedly "murdered" these men indicates that the pilot mistook their camera for some sort of weapon: Spotting the cameraman aiming his camera around the corner, he remarked "He's getting ready to fire".
My professional experience has been that when someone is looking for trouble, those not involved tend to avoid the area. Since troops had been fired on by insurgents in that area, this leads me to conclude, as the US Army did, that the armed men with the Reuters journalists were insurgents. I could be wrong: It's just barely possible that they were just "protecting their area" as Mr. Assange asserted.
With RPGs.
Frankly, I'm tired of Mr. Assange's self-serving half-truths and I'm even more tired of people who only look far enough into the facts to find a "villain" (generally the US).
I find it laughable that the extermination of Reuters Camera Crews and Village Militias should somehow be their fault for being in a conflict zone. Tomorrow when CBS Reporters trek about with US Troops and are caught in firefights they shouldnt complain about being targeted either. Its their fault for being in a conflict zone.
|
|
Sir_Wulf: Dealing with General Kilzlots is in every way a supremely bad idea. That's how secrets get made, and those kill. Say that you deal with him to achieve something in an area of interest that you have. He helps you, and in return you make sure Kilzlotsia gets money. He then uses the money you sent him to build more prisons for oppositional voices, buy more weapons, and tighten his control of the country. At that point, your involvement becomes a serious problem for you, so what do you do? You stamp it classified. That's why leaks are important, comprende?At risk of encouraging argument, rather than harmony, I'd like to follow that logic to some absurd conclusions:
* The US shouldn't deal with Russia, as their government is in bed with the mob.
* The US shouldn't deal with (ANY ASIAN OR MIDDLE EASTERN NATION), as their government is also corrupt and their human rights abuses are often appalling.
* We shouldn't ally with nations who fail to adhere to the standards of democracy and justice our government was established to uphold.
* We can fairly ally with Sweden and Canada. They meet our standards. Australia might also be acceptable, if they clean up their act a bit.Unfortunately, the ideal is the enemy of the good. Almost every nation in the world has some political issues we disagree with. Many times, we have the choice of dealing with someone we dislike or not dealing with anyone at all.
Additionally, if our government can't be trusted with other nations' secrets, they'll soon stop informing us of potential problems before they come home to roost.
Canada and Australia are member states of the Same World Spanning Commonwealth as Pakistan and India. We have laws that the US currently Violates. Our Corrupt Governments tolerate US violation of those laws. Commonwealth Governments have for the last century been required to seek the direct and regular approval of every citizen for every act of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign. So any Alliance with the USA (a NonCom State) requires my approval (legally) and I vote no untill the USA cleanes up its act.
|
One of the (many) security protocols protecting SIPRNnet hardware is a system called "T.P.I", or "Two Person Integrity", meaning that anyone accessing a piece of SIPRNet hardware must have another person of equal clearance (and "need to know") accompanying them AT ALL TIMES when accessing that sort of hardware.
Weird! My co-worker must have had access to a different SIPRNET, because he just accessed it from his desktop at work.
Weird! My co-worker must have had access to a different SIPRNET, because he just accessed it from his desktop at work.
The hardware itself?
|
|
Weird! My co-worker must have had access to a different SIPRNET, because he just accessed it from his desktop at work.The hardware itself?
Not sure, all I remember is that he used to access his SIPRNET account from his workstation. As far as I knew, it was just one of numerous systems we had access to.
Nothing else that you might have to say matters. This quote alone shows what you think about representative government, democracy, freedom, and the American people, in general (or by "idiotically simple public", did you mean some Third World Banana Republic just now being introduced to the discussion?)
Give me a break! I'm unimpressed with the members of an electorate who repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance in the politicians they elect and the ballot propositions they pass (I live in Arizona, if that's any excuse). Cynicism about the tendency of politicians and corporations to "fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time" is hardly an wholesale condemnation of democracy as a whole.
You consider the very rudimentary (I mean, basic, unsophisticated, sophomoric, and in every way childish) manipulations of a public too simple to understand what is going on "devious cunning"; while simultaneously asserting that our leaders are not competent enough to engage in such planning.
You can't have it both ways. First you're referring to "basic, unsophisticated, sophomoric, and in every way childish manipulations", then you're tearing into me because I agree that it's not hard to fool people (for a while).
I try to protect the public, despite the failures of our political process. I struggle to fight evils, both subtle and overt. I try to make the world a better place. If that makes me a miquetoast or dupe, so be it.
Journalists (or anyone else who speaks truth) are far more threatening than any amount of military force, as military force rarely (if ever) carries the weight of truth. The United States was (and is) intentionally targeting (non-embedded) journalists. This serves two functions...first, it limits the information available to the rest of the world and second, it provides the invaders with something else to blame on...anyone trying to resist rapacious imperial conquest. This is, of course, utilized by the conquerors as justification for their conquest.So the AK-47s and 2 RPGs carried by men in the targeted group weren't relevant? That's how Julian Assange apparently feels...
"based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything ... Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area" (from an interview in April 2010)
Radio chatter from the aircraft that allegedly "murdered" these men indicates that the pilot mistook their camera for some sort of weapon: Spotting the cameraman aiming his camera around the corner, he remarked "He's getting ready to fire".
My professional experience has been that when someone is looking for trouble, those not involved tend to avoid the area. Since troops had been fired on by insurgents in that area, this leads me to conclude, as the US Army did, that the armed men with the Reuters journalists were insurgents. I could be wrong: It's just barely possible that they were just "protecting their area" as Mr. Assange asserted.
With RPGs.
Frankly, I'm tired of Mr. Assange's self-serving half-truths and I'm even more tired of people who only look far enough into the facts to find a "villain" (generally the US).
Fascinating. You obviously have not seen the clip yourself. They had no bulky items except the camera, and he carried that slung over his shoulder. He was calmly walking down the street, not looking in any way, shape or form like someone preparing to bring down a helicopter. He walked in the middle of the street, not going near any corner, and certainly not aiming anything anywhere.
So if you have not seen it... why do you post about it???
If that makes me a miquetoast or dupe, so be it.
Mmmmmm.....toast.
He acted ethically...in spite of the rhetoric you've been hearing, Mr. Assange didn't place anyone in danger, because the documents were NOT simply "shotgunned" in full onto the Internet;...
Ethically my ass. Sorry dude, but you're not being nearly Machievellan enough about this. No one except maybe the NSA knows what's in the contents of his "insurance" file, but lets presume that the contents are serious enough to actually act to protect him from the wrath of the U.S. government. (i.e. lives at stake or worse...)
1. There's a slim chance that some dude with access to sufficent computing power could brute force the code. (Ridiculously slim, I know, but slim nonetheless.)
2. Pretend you hate the US and would happily kill or imprison a man just to embarass that country. (Can't imagine any groups or countries like that can you?) So what happens if Julian gets assassinated again? The key to the file gets released and US loses face or power around the world? Quite a few people and even countries with little or no morals would happily sign up for that.
3. Or take a step back from that even. You can't kill easily Julian because he's in police custody. The kids of various people who work at Wikileaks probably aren't that well guarded, how many do you think you'd have to kidnap or kill to get one of the employees to give up the key to the code?
4. Even better tell the parents of the kids you took that the CIA won't tolerate the dissemination of state secrets. I guarantee that that code would be public so fast it's not even funny.
So ethical? Not in the slightest. Julian doesn't have a clue what he's stepped into and much like a tarpit there's no way he's getting out of it on his own... except maybe with the help and protection of the very people he's trying to "bring down".
He didn't think this through at all.
|
|
"I consider fooling the public idiotically simple"
Nothing else that you might have to say matters. This quote alone shows what you think about representative government, democracy, freedom, and the American people, in general (or by "idiotically simple public", did you mean some Third World Banana Republic just now being introduced to the discussion?)
"Of the People, by the People, and for the People", remember? Which means that fooling the government is absolutely no different than fooling the previously mentioned public. In essence, you're agreeing with me, whether you like it or not.
You agree that the public is stupid, which necessarily means that the government is stupid ( as it is composed of the public)...unless my "conspiracy theory" holds some weight, in that it is comprised of individuals who cannot be manipulated in an "idiotically simple" fashion.
The problem for you is now that: You either knowingly take orders from blithering idiots, or you are a completely unknowing dupe (I will not, under absolutely any circumstances, ever accept a plea of "pure evil" from you...you are not now and never will be bad enough or dangerous enough, or even "risky" enough to merit that description...in short, you are milquetoast, nothing more) of real evil.
Abe Lincoln thought it was idiotically simple to fool the public.
He said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time.."
Do you think it's fair to hold Lincoln up as somebody who had no regard for represenative democracy?
Actually he did not, the quote is generally attributed to P.T. Barnum and goes
"You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time."
I also like this one:
“The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time.”
Franklin P. Adams
|
|
You're confused. You might be confusing the NIPRnet with the SIPRnet. The SIPRnet is most assuredly -not- accessible from some common workstation.Not sure, all I remember is that he used to access his SIPRNET account from his workstation. As far as I knew, it was just one of numerous systems we had access to.Weird! My co-worker must have had access to a different SIPRNET, because he just accessed it from his desktop at work.The hardware itself?
Dude do you have any idea what AZ does for a living?? I think it is more likely that you are either misinformed or are misunderstanding something.
You obviously have not seen the clip yourself. They had no bulky items except the camera, and he carried that slung over his shoulder. He walked in the middle of the street, not going near any corner, and certainly not aiming anything anywhere.
So if you have not seen it... why do you post about it???
I have seen the video. The radio chatter makes it clear that they thought they were engaging a group armed with some AK-47s and at least one RPG.
As far as them "preparing to fire", I was quoting one of the chopper crew. When he made that statement, someone (presumably the reporter) was looking around the corner in the direction of distant US ground troops. He was holding an object (presumably his camera with a long lens) that looked like it could have been a weapon.
Look at this from the perspective of the troops involved: They see some guys near a location where US troops had been fired on. Some guys are holding objects of some sort. They troops aren't going to assume that the objects they see are cameras, musical instruments, lab equipment, or camping gear. They expect to see weapons. If they're unsure exactly what they saw, they're likely to "read" it as a weapon. Aggravating the situation, some of the Iraqis did have weapons, which were found by the troops reaching the scene.
|
|
Dude do you have any idea what AZ does for a living?? I think it is more likely that you are either misinformed or are misunderstanding something.You're confused. You might be confusing the NIPRnet with the SIPRnet. The SIPRnet is most assuredly -not- accessible from some common workstation.Not sure, all I remember is that he used to access his SIPRNET account from his workstation. As far as I knew, it was just one of numerous systems we had access to.Weird! My co-worker must have had access to a different SIPRNET, because he just accessed it from his desktop at work.The hardware itself?I don't know what he does for a living, but I'm telling you that the SIPRnet is not accessible from a common workstation.
That's a fact.
I, also, know that people who work in computer security for the military are trained not to discuss it on the Internet as it identifies them as a target.
Actually, I'm not confused. But, whatever, I'm sure you know better than everybody else.
"I consider fooling the public idiotically simple"
Nothing else that you might have to say matters. This quote alone shows what you think about representative government, democracy, freedom, and the American people, in general (or by "idiotically simple public", did you mean some Third World Banana Republic just now being introduced to the discussion?)
"Of the People, by the People, and for the People", remember? Which means that fooling the government is absolutely no different than fooling the previously mentioned public. In essence, you're agreeing with me, whether you like it or not.
You agree that the public is stupid, which necessarily means that the government is stupid ( as it is composed of the public)...unless my "conspiracy theory" holds some weight, in that it is comprised of individuals who cannot be manipulated in an "idiotically simple" fashion.
The problem for you is now that: You either knowingly take orders from blithering idiots, or you are a completely unknowing dupe (I will not, under absolutely any circumstances, ever accept a plea of "pure evil" from you...you are not now and never will be bad enough or dangerous enough, or even "risky" enough to merit that description...in short, you are milquetoast, nothing more) of real evil.
Abe Lincoln thought it was idiotically simple to fool the public.
He said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time.."
Do you think it's fair to hold Lincoln up as somebody who had no regard for represenative democracy?Actually he did not, the quote is generally attributed to P.T. Barnum and goes
"You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time."
I also like this one:
“The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time.”...
+1
You obviously have not seen the clip yourself. They had no bulky items except the camera, and he carried that slung over his shoulder. He walked in the middle of the street, not going near any corner, and certainly not aiming anything anywhere.
So if you have not seen it... why do you post about it???
I have seen the video. The radio chatter makes it clear that they thought they were engaging a group armed with some AK-47s and at least one RPG.
As far as them "preparing to fire", I was quoting one of the chopper crew. When he made that statement, someone (presumably the reporter) was looking around the corner in the direction of distant US ground troops. He was holding an object (presumably his camera with a long lens) that looked like it could have been a weapon.
Look at this from the perspective of the troops involved: They see some guys near a location where US troops had been fired on. Some guys are holding objects of some sort. They troops aren't going to assume that the objects they see are cameras, musical instruments, lab equipment, or camping gear. They expect to see weapons. If they're unsure exactly what they saw, they're likely to "read" it as a weapon. Aggravating the situation, some of the Iraqis did have weapons, which were found by the troops reaching the scene.
+1
While I don't think we ever should have gone there, it is exceptionally difficult to to judge the shooters split second decisions from a frame by frame video analysis.
This is not a blank check for combat troops in the field, but we are putting teenagers in the position of making life and death combat decisions that are reviewed by a jury in an air conditioned room.
I would like to hear the testimony of field grade officers who gave the rules of engagement.
I'm not saying "I was just following orders" is ever an excuse, but we have to examine what the orders were.
|
|
"I consider fooling the public idiotically simple"
Nothing else that you might have to say matters. This quote alone shows what you think about representative government, democracy, freedom, and the American people, in general (or by "idiotically simple public", did you mean some Third World Banana Republic just now being introduced to the discussion?)
"Of the People, by the People, and for the People", remember? Which means that fooling the government is absolutely no different than fooling the previously mentioned public. In essence, you're agreeing with me, whether you like it or not.
You agree that the public is stupid, which necessarily means that the government is stupid ( as it is composed of the public)...unless my "conspiracy theory" holds some weight, in that it is comprised of individuals who cannot be manipulated in an "idiotically simple" fashion.
The problem for you is now that: You either knowingly take orders from blithering idiots, or you are a completely unknowing dupe (I will not, under absolutely any circumstances, ever accept a plea of "pure evil" from you...you are not now and never will be bad enough or dangerous enough, or even "risky" enough to merit that description...in short, you are milquetoast, nothing more) of real evil.
Abe Lincoln thought it was idiotically simple to fool the public.
He said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time.."
Do you think it's fair to hold Lincoln up as somebody who had no regard for represenative democracy?
Why not...His opposition to States going their own way flies in the face of the right of self determination. Sure you could argue he was defending the USA from factionalism and division but the cost was to create a US Federal Government that considered real Democracy a threat to the Minority that would always govern it and determine the direction of the Nation for their personal benifit.
Its a toss up as to whether Lincon could be considered the father of the fall of the Republic and the Rise of Empire.
"I consider fooling the public idiotically simple"
Nothing else that you might have to say matters. This quote alone shows what you think about representative government, democracy, freedom, and the American people, in general (or by "idiotically simple public", did you mean some Third World Banana Republic just now being introduced to the discussion?)
"Of the People, by the People, and for the People", remember? Which means that fooling the government is absolutely no different than fooling the previously mentioned public. In essence, you're agreeing with me, whether you like it or not.
You agree that the public is stupid, which necessarily means that the government is stupid ( as it is composed of the public)...unless my "conspiracy theory" holds some weight, in that it is comprised of individuals who cannot be manipulated in an "idiotically simple" fashion.
The problem for you is now that: You either knowingly take orders from blithering idiots, or you are a completely unknowing dupe (I will not, under absolutely any circumstances, ever accept a plea of "pure evil" from you...you are not now and never will be bad enough or dangerous enough, or even "risky" enough to merit that description...in short, you are milquetoast, nothing more) of real evil.
Abe Lincoln thought it was idiotically simple to fool the public.
He said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time.."
Do you think it's fair to hold Lincoln up as somebody who had no regard for represenative democracy?Why not...His opposition to States going their own way flies in the face of the right of self determination. Sure you could argue he was defending the USA from factionalism and division but the cost was to create a US Federal Government that considered real Democracy a threat to the Minority that would always govern it and determine the direction of the Nation for their personal benifit.
Its a toss up as to whether Lincon could be considered the father...
It is exceedingly rare for me to agree with yellowdingo, but I must concede a valid point in this case.
"I consider fooling the public idiotically simple"
Nothing else that you might have to say matters. This quote alone shows what you think about representative government, democracy, freedom, and the American people, in general (or by "idiotically simple public", did you mean some Third World Banana Republic just now being introduced to the discussion?)
"Of the People, by the People, and for the People", remember? Which means that fooling the government is absolutely no different than fooling the previously mentioned public. In essence, you're agreeing with me, whether you like it or not.
You agree that the public is stupid, which necessarily means that the government is stupid ( as it is composed of the public)...unless my "conspiracy theory" holds some weight, in that it is comprised of individuals who cannot be manipulated in an "idiotically simple" fashion.
The problem for you is now that: You either knowingly take orders from blithering idiots, or you are a completely unknowing dupe (I will not, under absolutely any circumstances, ever accept a plea of "pure evil" from you...you are not now and never will be bad enough or dangerous enough, or even "risky" enough to merit that description...in short, you are milquetoast, nothing more) of real evil.
Abe Lincoln thought it was idiotically simple to fool the public.
He said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time.."
Do you think it's fair to hold Lincoln up as somebody who had no regard for represenative democracy?Why not...His opposition to States going their own way flies in the face of the right of self determination. Sure you could argue he was defending the USA from factionalism and division but the cost was to create a US Federal Government that considered real Democracy a threat to the Minority that would always govern it and determine the direction of the Nation for their personal benifit.
Its a toss up as to whether Lincon could be considered the father...
Holy Crap! Twice in one century!
Depends on the code, but there might not be such a chance. Depending on his encryption algorithm, if somebody is able to crack it, we've got -much- more serious problems than Assange. We've got problems like the potential to bring down the entire financial industry.
As I understand it, it's AES256 and while it's hugely difficult to crack, brute forcing it has a slight possibility of working. (Again I recognize it's ridiculously small, but it also brings to mind XKCD's $5 hammer solution.)
You're assuming they have the encryption key. I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.
I'm not sure how's thats relevant to an argument that Julian didn't put anyone in danger. i.e. "I don't care if you don't have the code right now, someone you know does. I have your child. Perhaps you should try and get it before I send him home piece by piece."
If you're worried about AES getting cracked, there are -much- bigger things to worry about than Assange.
http://xkcd.com/538/
If that's the point you're trying to make, I think you're first going to have to establish whether someone who knowingly and willingly alligned themselves with Assange, someone who took on the risk of doing so, didn't have that right or responsibility.
It's one thing to leak corporate secrets, it's another to engage in statecraft without a state behind you. People who signed up for the former may not have signed up for the latter. More importantly, I'm not so sure their kids or other family members did.
People alligned with them have known from the beginning that they were involved in statecraft. That's their stated purpose.
You're missing the point. It's one thing to join the rest of the world in pointing fingers at people who don't care if you're pointing fingers at them. It's quite another to say, "If I die, my insurance file about the US will be exposed" in a world where quite a few people might be interested in seeing the contents of that file. It's not a particularly bright or ethical move to be perfectly blunt.
i.e. If I'm part of an organization willing to behead a journalist and broadcast it on the net, and ready to die for my beliefs, what exactly is my motivation for not killing this guy or kidnapping one of his coworker's spouses, kids, parents, or siblings?
This isn't a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a case of a little fish trying to act like a big one and forgetting that there are other fish out that there that have the will to take him out if that means hurting an even bigger fish.
So, people should only shed light on stuff when they have no fear of retribution?
I can't accept that arguement.
I'm also not sure that you can or should grant any moral high ground to a man who's knowingly or, equally bad, unknowingly endangered other people's lives like that either. It's easy to call him a hero now, your thoughts might change if his actions take him down any of the roads I've described.
Assang did the smartest move available to him when he turned himself in to the British. The British are motivated to keep him alive.
Possibly. I forsee a distinct possibility that JA is going end up in a witness protection program for his own safety and once he's disappeared, the governments he's been threatening are going to do whatever they want to him anyways.