Slashdot Mirror

The government at all levels is working to establish a massive database of people engaged in activities deemed "suspicious" by local law enforcement or even their fellow citizens. People who are not criminals, not engaging in any ILLEGAL activities, and aren't even suspected of any criminal wrongdoing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/20/surveillance/index.html
(contains link to: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/monitoring-america)

Seems like the government has developed this idea that "protecting the United States" translates into "protecting the GOVERNMENT of the United States"(i.e. from the people). With the people now seen as an enemy from which the government needs to protect itself, any recording of government operations, employees or facilities is interpreted as a threat. Investigative journalism is now seen as "espionage". Likewise, anyone that criticizes government policy or advocates smaller, less powerful government instantly becomes a "terrorist", regardless of whether they are engaged in any sort of criminal activities. After all, if you want to shrink the government or scale back its powers in any way, you are, in a very warped way, an "enemy of the state".

There is a related opinion piece on Salon.com right now:
The government's one-way mirror

Oh really? tl;dr: What we learned from Wikileaks, besides the extent to which the US military is ready to sacrifice civilian population to hit probable targets, is the total darkness in which the US administration helds its constituents and the bipartisan support this mode of operation enjoys. It's one thing to suspect something, another to have the evidence written black on white.

"...allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield" What could possibly go wrong?

While equipping soliders with any kind of emitter or tracking system has some level of risk, recall that in virtually every conflict 10-14% of all casualties are "friendly fire" incidents. Knowing where your friends are can cut this down.

BTW as the Salon article recounts in recent years in Iraw and Afghanistan the U.S. military is now claiming freindly fire casualty rates of under 1%. Frankly no one believes this number, as there is no explanation for how this astonishing reduction from a stubborn persistent phenomenon that has persisted throughout all of Twentieth Century combat was achieved. The Pat Tillman case, a friendly fire fatality that was hidden through lying, suggests the probable method currently in use to drive down the numbers. One that did not rely on deception (of the American public) would be preferable.

Actually, business is not very good at disruptive innovation like computers, the internet, nuclear power, space exploration, etc. That is govt's proper role, to fund long-term research and development. Biz is better at incremental innovation: making computers smaller, bringing the internet to the masses, etc.

Steven Johnson in a Salon interview about his book "Where Good Ideas Come From" says:

in the last chapter I tried to zoom out far enough and look at 200 to 300 stories from the last 400 to 500 years to really see from the long view what the patterns of innovation were. And it turns out that groups of people collaborating on ideas to advance science or technology without the goal of proprietary ownership are actually a bigger driver of innovation than the private sector. In many cases these other [nonprofit-minded] groups create ideas which allow commercial development on top of them. The Internet is the classic example.

When someone mentions the US I now think of people suffering like Bradley Manning http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

You can thank the US government for that. As long as this continues the US is IN PRINCIPLE AND ACTION little better than North Korea or Iran or anyone else. The main difference is scale and overt brutality.

Of course I now also think of internet censorship when anyone mentions the US, it was and is after all quite massive. Flawed and failing for sure but still a massive effort at censorship far larger than anything for example China has pulled off. Go USA... you always have to be "the best" don't you?

You can thank the US government for that impression as well. No radical lefties needed as I and other rightists in Europe get all the necessary information straight from the US government actions. More and more of us are taking notice of the US as a totalitarian society, as a new enemy of humankind.

The US is no longer "allies" to freedom: totalitarians can't ever be.

Sure US "soldiers" aren't crushing skulls and torturing people in the streets of the cities of the USA just yet but that's bound to start sooner or later the way things are going, right now American's rights are worth shit if they speak up. The US is already acting like a new Soviet Union.

Besides the many other good suggestions, I'd highly recommend Salon, and Glenn Greenwald in particular. You might also try The Nation, although it can stray into bleeding-heart territory at times.

You can also learn a heck of a lot by reading foreign news media, such as the BBC or Al Jazeera.

Yes they both grew bitter:

One because he was told by the Continental Congress that he owed them money after spending a substantial portion of his own wealth on the war effort, the other because he felt he was "actively involved in something that [he] was completely against"

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. war in Iraq: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing "insurgent" literature which, when he had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on he didn’t want to hear any of it he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees

        i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth but that was a point where i was a *part* of something i was actively involved in something that i was completely against

I totally get your confusion.

Guess he should have thought of that before committing a military crime while he was an active member of the military service. He is governed by a different set of laws that aren't nearly as nice as civilian laws.

Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

If he valued his own safety more than anything, perhaps he would have. But let's look at his motivation for leaking the materials:

To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth regardless of who they are because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that were screwed.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S.Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PMs cabinet i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on he didnt want to hear any of it he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth but that was a point where i was a *part* of something i was actively involved in something that i was completely against

And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didnt you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information try and get some edge - if its out in the open it should be a public good.

That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with an

Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work.

Bradley Manning did what he was morally and legally supposed to do:

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

        i had an interpreter read it for me... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM's cabinet... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on... he didn't want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees...

        i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against...

- Ref: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html

His employers failed both him and Iraq. Unfortunately the U.S. government failed to live up to their moral and legal responsibilities. Many people, including Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby lied and broke laws (in reguards to Iraq) and yet they were not sent to jail. A young private risks his own freedom to help Iraq and he is jailed and tortured by his own government. This is not right no matter what type of excuses you can think of.

To repeat what you said, "Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work.". Unfortunately if you cannot trust your leaders (i.e. immediate supervisors on up), then this is not a failure of the employee, this is a failure of Leadership. You may want to read up on other people who have spoken up about corruption and illegality with their employers, like with Richard Barlow or Patrick Tillman or Frank Olson, etc, etc and so on...

What he did broke that trust, and it broke a law he was reminded of every time he entered a secured area.

WRONG! It wasn't Bradley Manning who was untrustworthy, it was his supervisors. I would trust Bradley Manning with my life, more than I would his superior officers. If I was a corrupt individual I wouldn't trust Bradley Manning, but somehow I doubt that he was told his job was to help suppress the freedom and dignity of Iraqis.

People making a hero of him are ignorant of the law and naive about the need for security.

This is just flamebait. The people who have publicly proclaimed Manning a hero are highly educated, and generally very experienced in government (like Daniel Ellsberg). You appear to be the one who is ignorant.

Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.

And the legal defense funding promised by Wikileaks hasn't found its way to Manning's attorney. I wonder if they've found a 'better' use for it.

Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.

brother Stallman [...] has become the Chicken Little of geekdom

Thou speakest of Him like that?

Wu, a prominent champion of net neutrality, proposes what he calls "a Separation Principle for the information economy." He wants to see "those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who control the tools or venues of access ... kept apart from one another." He also wants the government to "keep its distance and not intervene in the market to favor any technology, network monopoly, or integration of the major functions of an information industry."

I'm sure the book is more nuanced than this, but IMHO allowing competitors to control access to each others' content is simply bound to fail, converging at a point advantageous to those who own the toll booths, and bad for almost everybody else and the economy and culture as a whole.

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to paedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail, which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and co

Palin having a dissenting voice is one thing. Calling for the assassination of another human being who has not been convicted of any crime is quite another.

Oh, you mean like our illustrious leader?

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

Ciataion? You have to be kidding. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon talks about it very often. Dig in.

Ciataion? You have to be kidding. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon talks about it very often. Dig in.

Ciataion? You have to be kidding. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon talks about it very often. Dig in.

Ciataion? You have to be kidding. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon talks about it very often. Dig in.

Ciataion? You have to be kidding. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon talks about it very often. Dig in.

I disagree. Many of us have suspected the chicanery that has been brought to light by the coverage , but confirmation of our suspicions is important.

The summary mentions the "recent publication of more than 250,000 diplomatic cables". This is a falsehood that keeps circulating. As of this moment, Wikileaks has published only 1295 of these cables, and I believe nearly all of these are published in the redacted form that has already been made public by cooperating news organizations such as NYT, Guardian, Der Speigel, etc. Glenn Greenwald at Salon seems to be the best source of reasonable reporting about this whole WikLeaks witch hunt: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html It would be great if the /. editors would correct this misstatement in the story summary.

However an unrestricted total dump is irresponsible, and to me Assange looks like a paparazzi of politics.

Wait, are you the guy from the New York Times Glen Greenwald was arguing with or are you one of his comrades?

So far WikiLeaks has released 1/2 of 1 percent of the cables it has, after carefully vetting them with five of the world's largest newspapers.

Disinformation troll is disinformative.

Press (from Latin pressare -> French presser) first means "to press" or a device that presses. These are the basic meanings. Hence printing press (which presses). Only later is it extended to mean an abstract category of people.

• There is a word (or words) for describing a person or persons from an aspect of their paraphernalia (but I can't remember it at the moment). Suit means a suit of clothes; it has also come to mean people who wear them (the upper class/managers). Washington is the name of a city; it is also used to mean "US government". However, as pointed out in a different post, this usage for journalists only came about in the 20th century.
• It's true that there's a "the" there, but still doesn't necessarily make it a reference to a group of people. We say "the" rain. "Two in the hand" means "two in one's hand". "Handy with the stick" doesn't mean handy with (one, singular) stick; it means handy with one's own stick. "Freedom of the press" means "freedom of one's own press (printing device)".
• When people talk of the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box, they're not talking about singular items (the ballot box), but rather the ability to use those items. Similarly, freedom of "the press" == freedom to use a press.
• The usage in "power of the purse" is identical to that of "freedom of the press". However, while only Congress has power of the purse, everyone has freedom of the press.

Here's why it matters: under your interpretation, the fullness of the 1st amendment is only granted to a special class. Many people think that's a bad idea. Under mine, every one has the right of the press.

Did you read the cable, or the link?

Dyncorp was sponsoring Bacha Bazi parties where this shit goes on, and knew enough about what was actually happening to be scared shitless when a reporter came snooping around.

The procurement and beating of small boys at Bacha parties is not made up

and Dyncorp has Done this before.

I'm willing to believe employees of Dyncorp didn't intentionally set out to do this, but they (and the US government) turned a blind eye to it happening, and spent a good deal of time covering it up.

Yes, and the woman automatically is believed to be telling the truth....

Associated Press:

On Dec. 8, 2008, a bleeding woman ran from Sowell's house and told a police officer that Sowell had punched her, choked her and tried to rape her, the lawsuit says. Police have said Sowell was released without being charged because a detective felt the woman was not credible.

At that point in time, Sowell had murdered 6 women. After being freed without charge, he would go on to murder 5 more.

People are already questioning the government, but not enough to make a difference, and with our election system, it doesn't really matter.

Here's my prediction: Sarah Palin is going to be elected President in 2012 (don't laugh, just look at all the people who support her). She's already said she wants to have him pursued with the same fervor as we did Osama bin Laden, so even if this incident blows over, I can see her having him assassinated after she takes office.

Sound nuts? Sure, but our voters are complete idiots, as they've already demonstrated at the polls for over a decade now, and by being so enamored of twat Palin.

My second prediction, which kinda goes along with American voters being morons: the US is going to collapse by 2025. Here's a Slate article about it from two days ago:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025

I haven't seen anything that I've said "Yes, the public needed to know this, it is important and shouldn't have been secret."

Its probably because you are self-filtering information that contradicts your own opinion. There are in fact many examples of information in these documents that the American public has a right to know. Here is a clear cut example:

The United States has been knowingly lying to the American public about its participation in military strikes in Yemen. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley in answered "No" to the question "Is the U.S. involved in any military operations in Yemen?" But the documents reveal the answer was a lie. Crowly was not misinformed. He was lying. Dont you believe that US citizens have a right to know when killing is being done in their name?

A good article with several links, and fascinating audio: http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/08/wikileaks/

The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print said materials. - New York Times v United States [wikipedia.org]

In this case, I don't think Julian Assange is protected under the United States First Amendment.

Not sure why he would need to be. The NYTimes and others published the documents first anyway.

Bout case is a useful study in how the Obama administration could be exerting pressure on the British and Swedish governments. Ironically, what we know about the Bout case comes from secret cables released by WikiLeaks. ... an aggressive lawyer could drag out an extradition case against Assange -- whoever the requesting country -- for as long as two years. But as bond has been denied, he might spend that time in a prison cell.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/julian_assange_extradition/index.html

Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks pending an investigation of the organization's business.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/07/wikileaks_17/index.html

Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks pending an investigation of the organization's business.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/07/wikileaks_17/index.html

Bullshit. the MPAA and RIAA, better known as the MafiAA, are a bunch of crooked thieves who defraud the real artists regularly.

Like So. Or perhaps see here. Or this one.

The government doesn't protect you for shit. It ought to be busy busting up the MPAA and RIAA as illegal monopolies, but it does nothing.

Near as I can make out, all Wikileaks is doing is making the U.S. look good and other governments not so good.

Please make out harder...

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;
(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;
(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");
(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";
(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;
(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;
(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;
(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,
(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

All right, genius, show us even one shred of evidence that the government threatened to shut down either Amazon or Paypal.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/lieberman/index.html

AAAAND you're lying about what your evidence is, too. The article you linked says that they were contacted and urged. Governments contact businesses and urge them to do things all the time. That's not a threat to shut them down. Most of the time the businesses don't listen and just go about their business. My challenge still stands: present one shred of evidence of an actual threat to shut down either Amazon or PayPal. I'm betting you won't find one because no such threat was ever made.

All right, genius, show us even one shred of evidence that the government threatened to shut down either Amazon or Paypal.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/lieberman/index.html

I'd say the real issue here is someone's addiction to a rosy-eyed view of corporations who can do no wrong blinds him to what's plainly right in front of him.

I didn't say corporations can do no wrong. I said the issue HERE is government power. IN THIS CASE.

GENIUS.

They are not pointing out specific wrong doings

They are, in fact, pointing out wrong doings.

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2)theState Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the StateDepartment under Bush andObama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see ThePhiladelphia Inquirer's WillBunch today about this:"The day BarackObama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by theWikiLeaks documents;

(7)the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the StateDepartment did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow theU.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9)Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

(TotH to GG, as usual.) I appreciate why you believe what you wrote. You might want to reconsider your position given your primary source of news is from organizations whose allegiance is to parent corporations that, like Amazon, absolutely cannot afford to get on the wrong side of the government that regulates them.

Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?

You do know how and why he was caught, right? Because if you did, you'd know that it was through no fault of Wikileaks, but through him being burned by a reporter that he trusted.

Trust can be misplaced...

Well, given that our glorious leader has generously given himself the power to order assassinations of US citizens at will I should think he may consider extending that power to non-citizens as well. But we'll have to ask nicely.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

Hopefully the NPR peice you heard wasn't from national security correspondent Dina Temple-Raston. She is a government parrot: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/11/terrorism/index.html

By the way, Glenn Greenwald absolutely nailed it here.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/wikileaks/index.html

My mistake, I got the first allegation wrong - the German case was about torture, not murder.

Glenn Greenwald, as always, has links here.

I'm pretty sure that the Constitution does not allow for the government to assassinate people with trial, for example

You'd be wrong in that assumption. The constitution says very little about the interaction between the US government and citizens of other countries.

President Ford started a no-assassination policy for our intelligence services, and Clinton had an executive order to that effect. However, Obama has apparantly put assassinaiton back on the table, which if true would mean Palin was just following Obama's lead here.

I think you have that backwards, and it therefore is an argument for the leaking of more. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/wikileaks_yemen_revelations Source cable: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10SANAA4.html

Sarah Palin Targets YOU!!!

...That's CNN's journalism: uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. ...what would an overtly state-run media do differently? Absolutely nothing. ...the sole criticism of the Government allowed to be heard is that they haven't done enough to keep us all in the dark...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks/index.html

It's probably about Bank of America.
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/11/30/wikileaks_and_the_banks

(And still there is no notes about how to 'properly' link a word with an URL in slashdots help below writing comments)

I imagine it especially comes to mind since that's what all the poltical blogs have been talking about for the last 24 hours. ;)

Salon even has a piece up talking about the difficulties involved in prosecuting under the Espionage Act!

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/30/wikileaks_espionage_act

FBI assassinating American citizens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Deaths due to torture
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/30/accountability

Extra-judicial assassinations (not including daily drone bombings)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

Of course, no one really knows what The Agency is doing right now. What is known is that the secret prisons still exist, and that the legal process of "extraordinary rendition", known to the rest of the world as kidnapping, still occurs. Our terrorism suspects are regularly flown to dictatorships like Egypt and tortured with our approval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States

Apparently disclosing the following counts as an act of terrorism according to a certain republican:

* US diplomats spying on UN

* Canadian diplomats asking ExxonMobil and BP to help "kill" U.S. global-warming policies to ensure that "the oil keeps a-flowing" into the U.S.

* Yemen goverment lying to its people on US bombings

* US pressing Germany to not pursue arrest warrants for 13 agents CIA agents. (arrest warrents that the cables describe as "From a judicial standpoint, the facts are clear, and the Munich prosecutor has acted correctly.")

This is stuff that people need to know.