Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Founder Advised To Avoid American Gov't
eldavojohn writes "Media darling Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has been told by his lawyers to avoid the United States on the grounds that the US military would like to ask him a few questions about his source of the Collateral Murder video. Assange claims to be holding yet more video (of a US attack on a village that allegedly killed 140 civilians in May of 2009), as well as a quarter million sensitive cables relating to the current foreign war operations from the US State Department. Assange surfaced for the cameras in Brussels while speaking about the need for the freedom of information. Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?"
The best thing he can do is get as much press as possible, make as many speeches as possible, engage in as much public activity as possible, and stay in a group at all times (no late night strolls alone). If the general public and press don't know who he is, the U.S. government can just grab him and quietly throw him in a secret jail cell somewhere (or even render him to a country willing to get their hands dirty torturing him with more than a little waterboarding).
It would be nice to live in a world where whistleblowers were rewarded and praised for their efforts. But the truth is that whistleblowers almost always suffer for their sacrifice. At best, they lose their jobs and/or are harassed. At worst, they end up in a filthy jail cell with electrodes on their balls.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I understand the need to keep things secret, and I understand that in war shit happens...but that doesn't mean when things go awry, we the people shouldn't know about it. For the same reason why I think uncensored war footage should be shown on the nightly news, maybe if the average civilian actually saw what goes on in war, the public would be less likely to stand by idly while our government spends billions on killing people on the other side of the planet.
Just my $.02
Living With a Nerd
Because, he could probably be arrested and tried for espionage.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
"Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?"
Could JFK? Could John Lennon?
But, Polanski is a famous director and a darling of European arts and elite.
This guy isn't.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Maybe I missed that update, but last time I heard WikiLeaks never confirmed they had any sensitive cables, in fact, so far they have denied it.
At least he's cleared by Australian gov to travel around, finish work on that second video in another safe house, and hide safely, if he thinks he need to - in Iceland or elsewhere outside both Australia and US.
It's clear from TFA that I was probably right in another post abount Manning being false target. All he said is Wikileaks is helping Manning with his case.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Yes, except for the "spying" part.
Dilbert RSS feed
He has balls. Bigger balls than your balls and bigger balls than my balls. I guess the point I'm trying to put across is that he has big balls.
So, even if he fails, he has shown that one man is able to wander around the world in a particular way credibly announcing he has sensitive government information without being David Kelly'd. Sure, he has to be white and rich, but that's better than nothing. If there's one thing we can learn from Assange, it's that we're mostly a bunch of fucking cowards not to stand up to Goliath, and we are getting the government we deserve. So, that's two things. Two things we can learn.
Not yet, he isn't. But that appears to be his plan: raise his profile sufficiently high that kidnapping him would raise even more questions (and virtually ensure plenty of people willing to step in and take his place).
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I'd like to preemptively buy a "Free Assange" wikileaks t-shirt. It doesn't exist yet, but I figure it's only a matter of time before it's necessary.
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
By teasing over the alleged videos and documents, he's shifting the focus of attention to himself and how he's treated by the US.
So. Fucking. What?
His story is utterly, totally trivial next to the things that he's allegedly holding back.
So publish already, or shut up. Or publish, then shut up. Either way, just shut up, as Wikileaks itself is rapidly becoming a distraction from the real stories that it ostensibly exists to publish.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
While the idea of Wikileaks is still quite popular; with more revelations about Wikileaks, Assange is no longer the media darling with everyone taking a more critical view of the man behind Wikileaks.
America's oldest whistleblowing website Cryptome which Wikileaks described as a 'venerabe anti secrecy organization' has collated the most details about what happens within Wikileaks. Cryptome has published all of Wikileaks founder Assange's chats over a few years as well as Wikileaks insider details about how they need $55,000 to run servers but as much as $200,000 is used by the men who run Wikileaks for business class travel, hotels etc.
Read Cryptome to see that despite its idealistic mission, at some level Wikileaks behaves like another secret Government department with a couple of people deciding what is public interest.
After reading the comments in this post, I think I am going to go buy stock in Reynolds Aluminum. I never knew how many foil-hatters there were in the world and on the internet.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Our US thuggery is fairly predictable. I'm sure the CIA or equivalent has already been given hit orders. It will be made to look like an accident (small plane crash, car crash, mystery disease, etc). Such is necessary for plausible deniability.
Poor bastard, he will be missed.
Considering his movies won 6 Oscars since that event, I'm not sure that "European" is appropriate. Western, maybe.
Dilbert RSS feed
Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?" Not unless he were a former American President or VP who admittedly introduced torture into the war regime. I'd say he's got the half life of a gnat at this point. If I were him I'd make sure ALL those documents went public PRONTO. That's probably his best option. Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
The U.S. government would not have to kidnap him. All they have to do is indict him and request extradition.
All the foil-hatters like to talk about kidnapping and the like. But, it is not even remotely necessary.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
x 5 because Assange may have U.S., British, Canadian, Australian and others looking to do a Mossad action on him as a warning to the others who have anything whatsover to do with Wikileaks.
Play in the bear cage? Better be the biggest bear.
So you are perfectly fine with, and encourage the CIA to go after and do harm to his family? If the videos and cables are worth that much that innocent people should be killed over it than I hope he releases all of it, let the people hold judgement about what the gov't is doing in our name.
The majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian; why should Iraqis be attacking the Saudis? This is especially so considering that the last time Iraq even looked like it might invade Saudi Arabia, the United States attacked Iraq and made a successful push for UN-imposed sanctions.
Had the USA invaded Saudi Arabia, I would be less inclined to disagree with you.
Palm trees and 8
I lost all sympathy for him
Just as a matter of interest, how much sympathy do you feel for the good samaritans who were going to the aid of the wounded when the Americas shot and killed them?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Furthermore, I have no sympathy for Reuters' guys because Reuters has a history of being embarrassed in that region by having its "correspondents" not only embed themselves with guerrilla forces, but often hires people who are working both sides (ex: the egg on Reuters' face when it came out that its subcontractors in Lebanon were actually members of Hezbollah).
Well, how else are we to get both sides of the story? If journalists are only embedded on one side, then we're only getting half of the story, no? Journalism should be neutral, unless you're implying that we shouldn't hear their side unless it came directly from us. At that point, it is no longer journalism. Instead, it is full blown-out propaganda.
Best "String" Ever!
Assange is spending his time publishing things that the most powerful people in the world want to keep private. If anyone has a reason to be paranoid, it is him -- this is not a case of tin foil hats, this is a case of a person with some really powerful enemies.
Palm trees and 8
And you have the information to back up this "often" claim, besides the one example you claim?
I know a guy who worked for a number of years for Reuters as a communications tech in war zones all over the world, and he never "worked both sides" whatever that means to you but whose life was endangered on a number of occasions. He was paid for it and he accepted the possible consequences. However, he, along with I would suspect are the majority of Reuters employees, did not work for for Hezbollah, and didn't, as you appear to suggest, deserve a couple of 30mm shells for doing his job.
Since this is the Internet, though, people who disagree with you of course deserve death, I suppose.
Heh... to refine your point, I'd say we (in the US) are definitely getting the government we've asked for, whether or not we deserve it.
Sadly, there was a time when this simply meant what it says. Now, the guy could end up getting water-boarded at some US secret prison in a third-world country - or New Jersey (shudder). Of course, the US doesn't torture people. Paying other people to do it is another matter.
Excuse me, there's a knock on the door ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Even a future without you, one way or the other. Is Wikileaks structured--really, be honest--so that if you are forced to 'retire' that operationally it will be a blip on the radar? Is the project and it's resources designed to survive you?
Dude, where's my packet?
So the government is the only one who gets to edit for political impact? Both sides inevitably play the propaganda game. At least Wikileaks made the entire video(that they had) available. Only the shorter, more YouTube friendly version was edited, and they never once tried to hide the fact. That's a lot more honesty than you can expect from the US military.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Despite all the noise, the most sinister claims made about the US government are that
1) The self-confessed whistleblower, Manning, is being held "incommunicado" in Kuwait and
2) The military would like to question Assange.
Manning hasn't been disappeared, vaporized, liquidated, or what have you; there's not even an allegation that the UCMJ has been violated in his case. And there's nothing at all strange or nefarious about the military wanting to question someone who received classified material; they'd hardly be doing their job if they didn't. If I was Assange I'd certainly avoid the US, but ascribing evil intentions or actions to the US military or the government in general is at least premature.
He hasn't gotten David Kelly'd *yet*.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Reuters was caught a few years ago editing photographs of a site that the Israeli Air Force had bombed in order to make it look worse than it was. When Reuters released pictures from the Israeli assault on the "peace flotilla", they edited out the weapons in the hands of the "peaceful" members of the flotilla and the wounded Israeli soldiers. There have been several other incidents of Reuters doing similar things, but I would have to work harder to track those stories down than I feel like at this time.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sometimes a story only has one side.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Other wikileaks staff bitch about how they cannot find him for weeks or months on end, and that's before he angered the U.S.
Assange isn't the best programmer or mathematicians aiding wikileaks, but he's definitely the one who'll expose himself. Assange very likely knows absolutely nothing about the individual leaks until another member involves him, like with Collateral Murder.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
It's not assassination that Julian has to worry about. It's the possibility of being kidnapped, taken into a secret location(black site), and questioned(tortured) by the government.It does not take a team of lawyers or a rocket scientist to figure out that Julian should not step foot in the USA. In fact he probably shouldn't leave Iceland if he's even safe Iceland.
He's fine; only conspiracy types would assume otherwise. The real question is, will Wikileaks get its message out and reach average people (not just geeks) and start changing minds and waking people up to things they haven't read about in the mainstream media or seen on Fixed News.. and if not, why not? What is it about our society that just continues to not be surprised by what Wikileaks reports, and not think about doing anything about it or trying to change the system?
The best thing he can do is get as much press as possible, make as many speeches as possible, engage in as much public activity as possible, and stay in a group at all times (no late night strolls alone). If the general public and press don't know who he is, the U.S. government can just grab him and quietly throw him in a secret jail cell somewhere (or even render him to a country willing to get their hands dirty torturing him with more than a little waterboarding).
It would be nice to live in a world where whistleblowers were rewarded and praised for their efforts. But the truth is that whistleblowers almost always suffer for their sacrifice. At best, they lose their jobs and/or are harassed. At worst, they end up in a filthy jail cell with electrodes on their balls.
Everything you say is correct. He should seek as much attention in the media as he can. Youtube and twitter are the easiest way to do it. About torture, the US government has the capability with psychologists and the covert agents to torture an individual without taking them to a jail or black site. Julian will have to worry about psychological as well as physical torture.To be harassed by random individuals is a form of torture.
I believe Julian already has a high enough profile to protect him from danger. Whoa cometh to the US Government should anything happen to him. The international pressure would be enormous and intense at a time when the US is at an all time international relations low. As a US Citizen, I appreciate his valor in enforcing my government's transparency initiatives. If President Obama is going to promise greater transparency, then by golly, he should deliver on it and if it takes Julian to embarrass him by pointing out his political non-speak, so be it. Wikileaks is holding President Obama's feet to the fire over transparency initiatives and I am the happier for it!
You should read up on The Pentagon Papers. We do have a free press in the US.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Wouldn't it be great if they just finished building their own Iron Curtain and stopped bothering the rest of the world?
I will feel sorry for the people on the other side of the planet just as soon as they start hunting down and killing the people on their side of the planet that are sending people to this side, to this country, to kill us.
The US and Britain have had a constant military presence in the middle east since the end of WWI. That's about 90 years. How many middle eastern nations have a military presence in the United States or UK?
I will feel sorry for them when they stop supporting people who say I should die because I don't believe in their religion of murder and conversion at the point of a sword, or barrel of a gun if you prefer.
And they will feel sorry for you when you stop sending armies over to kill them and take control of their oil resources. Especially when you stop supporting murderous local dictators and monarchs who conspire with Western powers to suppress democratic movements in exchange for piles of money.
The association of America and Democracy causes hatred and laughter across the region for a very good reason: we've been doing our best to destroy a nation's right to self determination for decades. Look at the Kurds for chrissake. One one side of the Iraq border, we give them monetary and military support in exchange for their political support inside Iraq. On the other side of the same border we supply the Turkish army with the weapons to kill Kurds and suppress Kurdish popular movements.
The reason you don't know any of this is because none of it is reported, but you just swallow the same bullshit lines over and over again. Yeah, a bunch of people halfway across the world just woke up one day and decided they hated freedom, so instead of attacking democracies on that side of the earth, they spent millions of dollars to attack the United States because they are "evil." But that's okay, we're "good" so in response to the murder of 3,000 of our citizens, let's start two wars and kill and maim a few hundred thousand Muslims on their home territory. Let's send the cradle of civilization back to the stone ages, since it's the only place in the region where women have something resembling equal rights. That should alleviate the tension between our two cultures!
You fucking moron.
Torture is usually worse than death for the victims family because it involves loss of honor even if the individual is left alive. Framing the individual for a bunch of crimes, or framing the individuals family members for all sorts of crimes is an example.
Besides they wont want to kill Julian anyway. They want to know what he knows and find out who his sources are not kill him. They need him alive and chances are they'd put him in a super max prison or a secret prison which has 23 hour lockdown and basically put him in a dark room for 23 hours a day until he goes crazy and talks. If you put someone into a room with no light, no sound, no sensory information at all, it's only a matter of time before they start talking to themselves and literally go crazy.
The soviets used to torture political dissidents by putting them into insane asylums. In these special political hospitals doctors and psychiatrists would scientifically torture them until they literally went insane or broke and spilled their secrets. This type of torture is worse than waterboarding, worse than physical pain, because it's psychological and on some level everyone is psychologically weak.
Well, if you keep watching until about 3:45, you'll see he also says that they released the full material as well. I don't really have a problem with that - they have a position on the meaning of the material, and present it in a way which has the most impact, but they also released the whole tape (well, everything they had).
Journalism is neutral, bullets aren't. If you embed with combat forces in a war zone, you're likely to get killed. Don't piss and moan when this happens.
Or, you know, identify your targets before shooting at them? In some cases, that's impossible. In the case of the Apache helicopter attack, the Apache wasn't being shot at, and at their range, they should have been able to make out the camera tripods.
Best "String" Ever!
He is wanted for questioning. He has received classified information and has published some of it.
How he published it was shameful and one of the worst examples of Yellow Journalism I have seen in a very long time. It was as unbiased and as even handed as the worst that FOX News has delivered.
The title the was created for the video and the additions to the video where pure emotional manipulation all for purpose of fund raising.
This guy isn't going to vanish into a dark hole he would at worst be questioned. Unpleasant but also totally to be expected.
What I think is at best amusing is this is considered news.
It would be right up with there with water is wet.
Yea this guy if he comes to the US will be questioned. If he goes to any nations that are close allies to the US he may be questioned. To whom is this exactly news?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
at a time when the US is at an all time international relations low.
Funny. I thought that was when Bush II. was in office.
Reply to That ||
Speaking as someone who donates to Wikileaks, if they have to use some of that money for travel and hotels in order to maintain the privacy of whistleblowers and to keep the organization's head moving so that he isn't thrown into a holding cell somewhere, then I am perfectly fine with my money going to those functions.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Seriously, if anyone believe in lone nutters, you are a NUTTER
Why only good people get assasintated, and not evil fuckers like Bilderburge and friends and evil friends of the Rep Party.
When have you seen a plane load of 50 Rothchilds or secret mofos get killed in a 'plane crash accident' , never.
The world is run by evil people, accept it.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
What about secret prisons and torture? If you understand what is at stake and how the government operates you'd understand the paranoia. The government appears to be declaring war on Wikileaks. Julian is the founder of Wikileaks. The government wants to "talk" to Julian and is desperately trying to locate his whereabouts.
Why would a government just want to "talk"?
The reason they wont kill him is they want information out of him. A dead body can't talk. They want to talk to him which probably means they want to get him alone in a room and torture the names out of him.
Is it worth pointing out that Assange is an Australian citizen, and thus cannot be guilty of treason against the US? Issues of Freedom of the Press aside that is of course.
Now I know that won't do any good as an argument in a US court. If they can kidnap him and bring him to a court they would likely try him anyways under some pretext. The problem is they don't want to have a court case because that would enable him to bring up all sorts of details concerning the same classified information that they are trying to keep out of the media in the first place.
My bet is he gets hit by a car, or commits "suicide" due to the pressure, or just disappears entirely and we never learn what happened to him.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Our US thuggery is fairly predictable. I'm sure the CIA or equivalent has already been given hit orders.
You've seen a few too many movies.
More than likely, Assange is having his lawyers try to get some kind of amnesty deal in turn for testimony and/or returning the materials. The only danger to Assange is that he be arrested, held and tried like any other person who breaks the law. He may even get off at trial due to Constitutional protection of freedom of the press.
Playing up the danger does get Wikileaks more press, so bonus points for good guerrilla PR for Assange.
If Assange basically turns into an informant for the government against his own source, Wikileaks will lose ALL credibility. That might be what the government wants him to do but that would ultimately kill Wikileaks as a project. How can it recover from that?
And returning materials? You mean refusing to publish it?
The world's most powerful military working for a public with only the maturity level on par with children. God help the world.
Well the bullies in the playground always want the biggest stick, is one way of thinking about it.
I know what you're trying to say, but I respectfully disagree. I've always felt that every side has a story or a cause, else they wouldn't risk their lives to do it. In some cases, their cause may be morally reprehensible to us, but there's always something that drives them to do whatever it is that they do. I get frustrated with the media because they like to lump people into "good guy vs. bad guy" categories, and it's usually "terrorists blow up bus, 50 die" or something like that.
Well, why did they do it? What was their motive? If you're going to give the story air time, then you're already legitimizing their barbaric tactics, so you might as well tell us the whole story so that we understand what the root cause of all this is. We could just blow up everyone who is a threat to us, but that is similar to treating the symptom, but if we don't treat the underlying cause, it will never get better.
Still, you did make a point. In what cases do you feel that a story would only have one side? I don't want to dismiss your point outright.
Best "String" Ever!
Dang good advise if you ask me. My dad, a 'nam vet-turned-mt-recluse told me over and over as I grew up and visited him in his NORCAL mountain cabin. I wish I had listened. It took me well into my 30's to fully understand.....Avoid interaction with the government, (they fuck you at the drive though). You are either all in or all out.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Except that he is an Australian citizen, and so treason doesn't apply - he owes no allegiance whatsoever to the USA.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Since he never leaked it. He may have received it and may be in position to publish it but the individual who leaked it already has been arrested. So what law is he breaking if he is in possession of the material but did not leak it?
Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?
The guy has already been put into hiding. He'll either have an accident or be labeled a terrorist.
I would think those two options would be the worst possible options they could choose. If Wikileaks founder were to be labeled a terrorist or were ot be killed Wikileaks would grow immensely and there probably would be a lot more leaks than before. It would probably only make the situation that much more out of control.
"He said Manning had been detained without charge for 3 to 5 weeks and lawyers were unable to meet or contact him."
Mr. Assange does understand that Manning is in the military, subject to the UCMJ, and that most civilian efforts to "defend" him are worthless? Manning faces a court martial, I believe the military has two steps in the appeals process, then an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The Supremes seldom bother to hear cases from the military.
Same deal with Nidal Hasan, charged with those killings at Fort Hood. The military doesn't give him unlimited appeals like civilians get.
Anyway - what I'm getting at, if you want to "defend" someone in the military, you have to get inside the military courtroom. And, you only get a couple of chances to get it right.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"The problem is they don't want to have a court case because that would enable him to bring up all sorts of details concerning the same classified information that they are trying to keep out of the media in the first place."
Alternately, Wikileaks could simply sit on the REALLY bad leaks as insurance. "Arrest us, and THIS gets out. Kill us, and ALL of these will get out."
Dude, where's my packet?
ok, so which would you prefer:
1. the usa goes all out all over the world where there are atrocities, even when there's nothing there in our self-interest, thereby increasing american military presence in foreign lands a hundredfold
2. the usa doesn't aid anyone militarily, no matter what the reason, even if our self-interest might be served. some asshole starts massacring ethnic minorities? oh well, sucks to be them. so what's on tv?
the usa gets involved in brutal places where it overlaps with self-interest. true
but that's ok by me, since choice #1 is impossible to afford and choice #2 is a level of callousness i'm not ready to accept
so what would you choose?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How can an Australian commit treason against a country he's not a citizen of?
I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
so someone like you will therefore say that the usa doesn't really care about the oppressed, just filling up our gas tanks
ok. so we need to change policy then. which direction should we go in:
1. help more of the oppressed, regardless of self interest. so the usa goes all out all over the world where there are atrocities, even when there's nothing there in our self-interest, thereby increasing american military presence in foreign lands a hundredfold
2. the usa doesn't aid anyone militarily, no matter what the reason, even if our self interest might be served. so some asshole starts massacring ethnic minorities? oh well, sucks to be them... hey, wanna play a videogame?
so you choose. which direction do we go in: massive involvement worldwide, atrocities being the only criteria? or no involvement period, even if horrible atrocities are being committed. you tell me what the superior policy is
as for me, the usa gets involved in brutal places where it overlaps with self-interest. and that's ok by me. we're not responsible for atrocities elsewhere, but if we're going to help clear up those atrocities, might as well get some benefit out of the expense in lives and money, no?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I was under the impression that the press had the freedom to publish anything.
So what law says they cant?
therefore, it seems to be a concept that is selling well
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Pentagon Papers precedent legally says the press CAN publish anything from the government. If someone leaked files that Elvis ordered the hit on JFK under pay from Queen Elizabeth and the hit was carried out by Frank Sinatra, because JFK was covering up a secret government project of a stargate under a Colorado mountain, the NY Times could publish it freely. Short of Obama ordering missiles into the NY Times building in Manhattan, he couldn't stop them. The "press" also has lots of lawyers that "bloggers" don't.
Dude, where's my packet?
"Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?"
No.
Regards;
If you don't even want to cite your sources, why feel the need to vomit over this thread?
"The military might of the US lies in its industrial output, not its secrets. Secrets only protect the US regime from its own population."
The military might of the US is primarily about two things: the quality and training of its troops, and its lead in military technology over adversaries. Industrial output means nothing, as our focus is on small numbers of advanced weaponry. We have 20 B-2 bombers. That's it. We'll have 187 F-22 fighters. That's it. Whether it's wise or not, the US is counting on technological superiority, not the sheer numbers of industrial output. Industrial output was WWII, when a war with a peer enemy would last for years and you had time to make more weapons. A war with China would be very short, one way or the other. So blithely allowing our most advanced technology to be leaked to China, or anyone for that matter, is stupidity on a grand scale.
Should the US rely on a few hyper-expensive, highly secretive weapons for its defense? That's another debate, and an important one. But as long as we have our current strategy, allowing those secrets to be given away would be self-defeating, no? "We're relying on our technology, but sure, here are the secrets to our latest weapons. Enjoy!".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
when you articulate something moderate, the far left sees that what you are saying is to the right of them, they project their fears onto what you are saying, and therefore lash out at you for being far right
and when you articulate something moderate, the far right sees that what you are saying is to the left of them, they project their fears onto what you saying, and therefore lash out at you for being far left
the truth is, when you are a true moderate, you get called a communist idiot by the far right, and a tea party asshole by the far left, all at the same time. it says more about them than it does anything about yourself. and while it may be mentally debilitating to be attacked on both sides, at the same time, it lets you know that you ARE a true moderate, which is a real consolation in this world of partisan nitwits around every corner. if you are getting attacked by both ends of the wackjob spectrum at the same time: pat yourself on the back, for you are ideologically well-adjusted
it's happened to me. i've been called a neocon apologist for gw bush, and then, in the next post, a socialist self-loathing bleeding heart. it gets kind of funny after awhile, to see people leading with their irrational fears and screaming out their hysterical inability to think of any opinion except in only the most the simplistic binary stereotyping of ways that their closed imperceptive minds proscribe
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So Julian Assange is not a criminal. Case closed.
Wish I had some points to give you.
darjen lives in some fantasy world where being pacifist will always get the result you want. Not true. See ArcherB's list.
i have often thought about the usa taking over haiti
haitian nationalists would be screaming bloody murder, but puerto rico has continually voted not to leave us commonwealth status (in spite of puerto rican nationalist terrorism in the 60s and the 70s), simply because they know they get benefits, despite the wounded nationalist pride (which is assuaged by not choosing statehood)
of course, we shouldn't INVADE haiti. we should simply approach the haitians and the un and say "maybe two three decades of outside stewardship by a world power with lots of resources might do haiti some good?"
i think something like this would cost 1/1000th of iraqi occupation, cost a handful of lives rather than hundreds, and do 10,000x the amount of good, for decades, if not permanently
expat haitians in the usa are extremely influential back home, haiti is well within the american economic, cultural, and regional influence. it really makes a lot of sense, if haitians can put aside their nationalist pride for a bit, maybe the usa can help by taking over
i know, i know, impossible. not so much because of the haitians, but because of the american assholes who would wind about this "waste" of resources, the same american assholes who probably ecstatic about invading iraq. to them, its more about punishing "dem ayrabs" than really trying to help people in this world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm amazed you have sufficient brainpower to keep your lungs functioning. How is this relevant? Only that:
1. He runs the site and is being harassed by the Australian and U.S. governments ...and kept those people in prison years after the government knew they were innocent
2. The U.S. has kidnapped people far from any actual battlefield
3.
4. You don't see the relevance in a whistleblowing site facing animosity from the subjects of it's whistleblowing?
You. Fucking. Dumbass.
Aiding treason by helping out the Bradley Mannings of the world? What happens when Australian classified documents are posted? I realize that wikileaks has good intentions. However, the sensitive nature of the things that are posted could get people killed...
I realize that a leak can be for a noble cause. However, the main purpose of classification is to protect items that could be harmful to national security. Their are safeguards to make sure that classification does this. If someone deliberately posts classified material, how can they know what harm it will cause?--Or do they just not care? Is this responsible journalism?
Link to a few examples from the flotilla one.
Can he build a high enough profile to protect himself from danger?"
No.
Accidents happen...
~Syberz
Wikileaks Founder Advised To Avoid American Gov't
good advice for anybody
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It's perfectly possible for the U.S. to intervene in situations like the civil war in Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide, or Sudan while also staying the hell out of Iraq.
Shocking, I know.
Primarily because it is trivial for anyone who wants to do a simple Google search. Reuters photoshop scandal ( http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=reuters+photoshop+scandal&aq=1&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=reuters+photoshop&gs_rfai=CyzduCeggTLLHBYvkgATD6M3hDQAAAKoEBU_QExI0&fp=bff9aea6fcd663ae ). But since you will assume they are perfectly fine despite what people tell you without doing a search for yourself here's the link. Someone else provided a link to the Reuters editing of the flotilla photos.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
hmmm
could you substantiate that claim please?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All you people out there who think Wikileaks is just fine and dandy need to ask yourself a question.
Do you believe that government should have NO secrets at all?
Think before you answer.
This means troop movements, battle plans, agents of any kind, anywhere.
It means no more sealed federal records of any kind. If you did your sister in 7th grade, we will know about it.
IRS records (they are government records) are open for all to see, communications between you and your Congressional representative, communications between anyone in government about anything.
Want to know the location, passwords, procedures to gain access to nuclear, biological or conventional weapons? No problem. There should be no secrets...right?
We could know where Obama is, where he's going, when he'll get there, where the secret service is, how many there are and what their various plans are to protect the president.
Delicate negotiations with a company to make available some revolutionary technology to solve "global warming"? FTS! It's all public subject to the whims of anyone with the information.
Diplomats working behind the scenes to free civilians from captivity in some Islamic hell hole? Hell, we all should be in on that. Publish it!
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING would be open and available.
On the other hand, if you think that some of this stuff should be kept under wraps (your sister does I bet), then Wikileaks should make you sick. That's because Wikileaks thinks that anyone and everyone who thinks classified material of any kind should be public for whatever twisted reason, can publish it without repercussion.
There is no firewall. No protection. Nothing. If someone has access and thinks it should be public...there ya go. The best you can do is to rely on some unknown people who are accountable to nobody to decide not to publish something....for now anyway.
Is that really what you want?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Wikileaks has neither confirmed nor denied that Manning leaked information to the site, but on Sunday it tweeted that "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect."
(originally via twitter)
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-to-lamo/comment-page-1/#ixzz0rbLRc14C
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
What good Samaritans are you talking about? I watched the entire unedited video. They were combats, they had weapons. The vehicle had no markings indicating it was Red Cross/Crescent. They were trying to evacuate the wounded but they were still combatants, Insurgents don't wear uniforms. The video was edited to make it look like a massacre and not a battle. I have been against these wars from the start, but it does not help the Anti-war cause to have anti-war groups posting inaccurate or manipulated info. Keep in mind this was the same group that released the emails from scientists that created "climate-gate-" which the American Right used and continue to use to stall climate change. And now it appears they are basically threatening to release a quarter million state department communiqués. This could be disastrous to our relations with any number of nations. Some of them may say unflattering things about other nations that diplomatically could be disastrous if they got out. Assage is nothing more than a media whore who is giving real whistleblowers a bad name.
Well, how else are we to get both sides of the story? If journalists are only embedded on one side, then we're only getting half of the story, no? Journalism should be neutral, unless you're implying that we shouldn't hear their side unless it came directly from us. At that point, it is no longer journalism. Instead, it is full blown-out propaganda.
At the same time, we have to be aware that propaganda exists on all fronts. There is certainly value is seeking out all sides of a given story. But one has to consider the sources involved. What one could be witnessing is simply competing propaganda fed by opposing agendas.
Or, you know, identify your targets before shooting at them? In some cases, that's impossible. In the case of the Apache helicopter attack, the Apache wasn't being shot at, and at their range, they should have been able to make out the camera tripods.
The footage in question has communications from several different parties with different views of the situation. The gunships might not have been shot at, but there were ground troops involved and they were certainly in possible danger. The distance for the gunship is misleading.
Secondly, you'd be amazed at how dangerous a camera can look. I've been playing paintball with photographers on the field and sworn that they were opposing teammates shooting at us. Paintball has little to do with combat. But the effect of confirmation bias is very clear and clearly played a roll in this incident.
that american corporations make a buck off haiti. if haiti is better off than before american involvement, who cares?
what i'm saying is, because you are uncomfortable with the idea of greed, you're basically willing to let haiti fester. well, i'd rather improve haiti and let a little capitalist chicanery get involved, as it inevitably will, if it improves haiti
and yes, the usa raped the caribbean, central america, and south america in the past. and japan invaded its neighbors. and france colonized part so the world. etc
every country in the world has shameful abuses from its past. that's supposed to mean a country can never be motivated for other reasons? a study of history should enlighten us as to the conditions of the world, not trap our minds into thinking about countries in only historical modes of behavior
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Indeed, there is nobody on earth who does anything because they believe it is wrong, or bad, or evil. Doing so is a blatant internal contradiction.
Take serial killers. They are almost always sociopaths, which makes a hell of a lot of sense. Sociopaths cannot distinguish between right and wrong. To them, helping someone fix a flat tire and killing them are like choosing between an apple and an orange. At that point it's just a matter of looking at what gives them the most reward, and if the rush of killing is greater than the satisfaction of helping, they will often kill. We see them as the most evil people on the planet, but they certainly don't see themselves that way. To them it's the right thing to do.
Take also tyrannical leaders. Pretty much all of them believe their power is a right, and it is their privelege to exercise it regardless of what happens to others. As such, oppressing the people to assure his power is not evil, it's what is right and wholesom because he must remain in power.
No doubt the soldiers in the video had rationalized away their actions. Perhaps they blamed all Iraqi's for the actions of the terrorists. Perhaps they felt the citizens supported the enemy, and by proxy they were enemies as well. Who knows? Perhaps they just made a bad judgement call, and thought the journalists actually were enemy combatants (they were apparently carrying guns out in the open - not usually something you expect of a journalist or non-combatant), and then thought the people who went to help them actually were going for their guns? In that case, it's nothing malicious, just a very, very bad judgment call on a battlefield - where, by the way, a slow decision can mean your death.
What you can be certain of, is that the soldiers didn't kill anybody because they believed it was wrong to do so. If they believed it were wrong, they would not have done it. In light of that, you must look into the soldiers side of the story, or story is incomplete.
The same is true with all stories that appear to only need one viewpoint. That is never the case.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
If he has any additional video or email/electronic records he needs to release them ASAP. By saying he has something but not releasing it he raises the probability that he will meet with an "accident" of a permanent nature that will prevent him from publishing anything else.
He should also worry about his family and friends, if he is unavailable they will be the next targets in attempts to "convince" him to not release anything.
While I would prefer to think that the US would not go so low as to threaten/hold third parties I know that they would not hesitate to act like the Russian Mafia if it suited their interests.
A half second on Google produced this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies
From Wikipedia:
The 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies refers to instances of photojournalism from the 2006 Lebanon War that misrepresented scenes of death and destruction in Lebanon caused by Israeli air attacks. As a result of the scandal, Reuters fired freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, and the AP disciplined several others.[citation needed] Reuters also fired a photo editor, and implementing stricter controls on its photo-gathering process.
The controversy began as an investigation of documents by individual bloggers, and spread to print and television media sources.
I suppose you think bloggers can't dig up news too eh? All hail the "impartial" media, eh?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
According to wikileaks, they don't have any embarrasing "international cables" but they do have other documents that expose war time/rights violations by the US Government/Army. http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-maybe.htm
But there is dissention in the wikileaks contributor community, someone keeps sending documents to cryptome that exposes the real goals of wikileaks - to get julian flying international in style and to get money from major news outlets for major leaks. Supposedly Manning even expected to share in the cash for his videos.
The motives make the site less noble, but the leaks are still great stuff. Especially the ones which deal with countries taking out "loans" to pay off the interest on the "loans" that they can't pay back anymore. This protects the banks that gave out the loans (usually part of the Federal Reserve banking cartel) because they can show the original loan and the new loan as "assets" (because they are still getting interest payments.) That means that the bank can actually loan out more money because they have more "asset" value on the books! When the pyramid finally falls down, the banks find some other way to clean up, usually with assistance from the Fed and the US Congress to get more imaginary (inflationary) money to be released from the "Federal Reserve."
The way this inflation scam works is well explained in "The Creature from Jekyll Island." It explains the current economic boom/bust cycle like no economist ever would dream of - because the author doesn't believe that any monetary system with no back-end discipline can survive in the long term (which is a big part of economics - "managing" the economy) The basic idea it promotes is that of a disciplinary standard that prevents inflationary spending - such as the gold standard. But even if you could care less about the gold standard, it still well explains the issues inherent in our current system, how it is used by governments and how it's hard to accept the political realities of not going into continuous inflation, which is why inflationary systems keep popping up. Rome is his first example of an inflationary system corrupted, and Greece and the Byzantine Empire. The bezant was accepted from China to Brittany, from the Baltic Sea to Ethiopia, and kept a stable price for 800 years, with a strict, disciplinary banking system. We don't have that today, just a bunch of pomp and fluff designed to look respectable and disciplinary. Deserving of respect or an exemplar of discipline our current monetary system is not.
The U.S. has established a nice little track record of abducting people far away from any battlefields and "holding them for questioning for 8 years and counting". And on what planet would it make sense to risk the comparatively lesser ordeal of being arrested, prosecuted, and spending the next few years in jail while the case works it's way through the courts?
If you don't even want to google it, why feel the need to ...
I mean, I didn't know about that, but it took me about two minutes to find out.
...and foreign-sourced microprocessors.
/whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
self-interest will never be removed from anyone's motivation, ever. therefore, no nation, ever, will meet your ridiculously perfecting standards of behavior in the world. therefore, you are indeed perfectly happy to let haiti fester for the sake of ridiculously impossible standards
"I'll counter that a large part of the US history (and, yes, I'll readily admit, most of the G8 countries) involves using their size (geographic, military, economic, social) to abuse other nations. I suppose that is how it goes in International politics, but that doesn't excuse it. Since we cannot trust the words of the leaders of nations, nor can we trust the motives of corporations, we can really only look to their past dealings for an indication of the tone any future dealings."
so therefore, japan should never be trusted to ever to play a role in china, because japan will always only be an imperialist there. germany should not be in the eu, because germans are only military expansionists. and other such nonsense
you use history as an excuse to be intellectually and morally lazy. your cynicism trumps your intelligence in your current view of the world and its players. currently you say "these are my standards, and no one meets them, so no problems will ever be solved"
currently you do not have any validity or coherence in your opinions of the world. if you have a genuine human conscience, you need to pit that conscience against your current lazy, self-serving ridiculously high standards, and find a more pragmatic way to look a the world and its problems. the world is never, ever going to work the way you think it should, as long as human beings are human beings. try to leave your ivory castle, and see how things actually work down in the mud, however ugly you feel this exercise to be. you aren't engaged in the good fight anymore. you've merely given yourself a lame excuse to retire from and excuse yourself from the good fight to make this world a better place, because no one is acting according to your impossible specifications
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You should perhaps read before you write.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm
Historically, Iraqi women and girls have enjoyed relatively more rights than many of their counterparts in the Middle East. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. Yet, since the 1991 Gulf War, the position of women within Iraqi society has deteriorated rapidly. Women and girls were disproportionately affected by the economic consequences of the U.N. sanctions, and lacked access to food, health care, and education. These effects were compounded by changes in the law that restricted women's mobility and access to the formal sector in an effort to ensure jobs to men and appease conservative religious and tribal groups...
The primary legal underpinning of women's equality is contained in the Iraqi Provisional Constitution, which was drafted by the Ba'ath party in 1970. Article 19 declares all citizens equal before the law regardless of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion. In January 1971, Iraq also ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provide equal protection under international law to all...
Maybe he figures anyone who isn't just going to dismiss his argument anyways and is interested in knowing probably also possesses the cognitive ability to type in the first thing they think of like "reuters edits bombing photos" into the google and get this back:
Reuter Photographer Controversy
Contributing actual information and taking a position on the topic in question without all the citing for your lazy ass isn't "vomiting all over a thread". Complaining about it while contributing nothing is.
I'm glad WikiLeaks exists and publishes this kind of information. On the other hand, I also don't have a problem with the US government arresting and prosecuting people who do. Ultimately, a court does need to look at these kinds of leaks and make a determination whether there was a compelling public interest or not.
What we should be asking is whether our laws protect whistleblowers enough in these cases, and whether our courts are making the right decisions. And I think we also need strong laws against people classifying information for which there is no strong security interest in keeping it classified.
I can't agree with you here. Islam is not alone in perpetrating this myth. For that matter, my historical reading makes it sound like this was a common defense trotted out by rapists here in the US until not so long ago.
Looking only at religion, user Creedo said it much better than I could just recently over in the story about the Utah governor. A choice quote:
Mind you, I'm not trying to say that Islam is somehow excused because the Old Testament says much the same things. However, I am trying to say that looking only at "holy" books will show you no end of horrid hypocrisy. Judge people not on their religions, but instead on how they behave.
Sadly, much of the world, Muslim or otherwise, isn't doing too well when it comes to fairness and justice.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
The U.S. has established a nice little track record of abducting people far away from any battlefields
European and Asian nations have been complicit in this: they've participated in moving people around and questioning them, and they sometimes refuse to take back even their own residents, let alone other people picked up in the battlefield.
And what alternative do you actually propose? US soldiers pick up a dozen people on the battlefield. What are they supposed to do with them? Let them go? Create internment camps in Afghanistan and Iraq? Ship them to Switzerland? I'm not saying it's right, but I think people simply don't know what to do.
There is a reason for classification. Releasing classified documents knowingly is treason against the United States. It is written very clearly in laws.
Only if doing so puts American citizens at risk - either soldiers or civilians. Since in this case it's hard to argue it does either, it isn't treason for anybody involved. A breach of protocol and a career ending move for the soldier, absolutely, but it may not even be a crime according to the UCMJ.
In any case, Assange is not a US citizen, he cannot, by definition, commit treason against the US. The whistle-blower himself has not been charged with treason, so I'm not sure how you can come to such conclusions.
What this is is Assange trying to make this a much bigger deal than it actually is. It's like when someone gets arrested for someone, and the police bring people who were with him at the time in for questioning. It's really no different.
The truth is, there is very little, if any, value in killing him. The leaker would have just gone to one of a dozen different websites instead if not for Wikileaks. Also, if they were planning on killing him you wouldn't hear a word about the Pentagon trying to get in touch with him for questioning. They would be completely ignoring the issue. They'd be all over the officer and wouldn't even mention Wikileaks except to say that's where the info was sent. One day Assange would go on another of his multi-month disappearances, but this time he'd simply never come back. Poof, gone, crackpot conspiracy theories would abound (and they'd be right) but they'd never be taken seriously.
No, what they want is to get information from him about the intelligence officer who turned in the information, and they want to see if they can convince him - by threat or bribery - to not release whatever else he may have that this guy leaked.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The guy has already been put into hiding. He'll either have an accident or be labeled a terrorist.
What are you talking about? Assange is known for disappearing for months on end, so much so that it's well known that it pisses off his Wikileaks staff every time he does it.
He isn't in hiding, he just likes to pretend like he is important enough to need it.
Trust me, if the government wanted to kill him, the story wouldn't be "Pentagon looking for Wikileaks founder for questioning". What you would have is an astute journalist asking a Pentagon official "What about Wikileaks founder Julianne Assange? Are you going to attempt to bring him in for questioning?" to which the official would respond "Who? We're only interested in the intelligence officer who leaked classified information."
It would be a complete non-story if they were actually trying to kill the guy, and the way it would go down is Assange would go on yet another extended disappearance, except this time he'd never come back. Poof, gone, nice and quiet, with little - if any media attention.
Seriously you people watch way, way too much TV.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
every country in the world has shameful abuses from its past. that's supposed to mean a country can never be motivated for other reasons? a study of history should enlighten us as to the conditions of the world, not trap our minds into thinking about countries in only historical modes of behavior
can china only forever more think of japan as an imperial aggressor?
can france only and forever more think of germany only as an imminent blitzkrieg?
no, of course this laughable. likewise, if you can only see the usa as the usa acted a century ago, this means only that your opinions about world relations are invalid and you have nothing useful to say about reality
don't be trapped by history. let history inform you as to the state of the world. but the state of the world and the motivations of its players is not static and unchanging. you're being intellectually lazy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Perhaps if the US military was instead to spend some resources addressing their world famous gung-ho trigger happy culture they wouldn't need to spend so much time covering up civilian kill streaks and team killing of allied soldiers. I for one am very glad of the existence of wikileaks. At least they are getting a lot of free publicity.
If journalists are only embedded on one side, then we're only getting half of the story, no?
Read the text you quoted from the GP again. Reuters' subcontractors were actually members of Hezbollah. That would be like finding out that the "embedded journalist" is actually the platoon sergeant.
Actually, Wikileaks has explicitly denied possession of the quarter-million US embassy cables from the State Department.
"I find it interesting that you bring up planes here, because the numbers directly contradict your claims."
No, not really. You mention at at present, the US has more fighters in total than Russia and China. But that wasn't true until about 15 years ago, in the aftermath of the death of the Soviet Union, which had far greater numbers of aircraft alone than the US did, not even counting the air forces of its former Warsaw Pact satellite states.
Our current "lower numbers, higher tech" philosophy is a direct holdover from the Cold War, when we couldn't match the industrial production of military items the Soviet Union was churning out. The whole idea of the Air/Land Battle concept of the late 70's and 80's was to use small number of technically superior weapons (with superior trained people) to cut off the supply lines of advancing Warsaw Pact forces, and to isolate their front lines from their reserves and supply lines. This was adapted precisely because there was no way a combined US/Nato force was ever going to match the Soviets on a plane to plane, tank to tank basis. They had the numbers game won, flat.
So while we presently have more fighters, take a look at that inventory again. How many of them are actually in production? Just a couple of them now. The rest are old, and are in the process of being phased out, and long ago lost their technical edge (the F-15 was designed in the 60's remember). The last F-16 that USAF purchased was bought in the mid-90's, 15 years ago. While the fleet is large compared to Russia and China now, it's mostly old, and going away. Again, what is actually in production now?
Just the F/A-18 Super Hornet, and the F-22. And the Raptor is about to end production, as you noted. That leaves The F-35, which is still in testing. Now look at projected force numbers. As noted, the USAF gets no more than 187 Raptors, total. They're planning on getting around 2200 F-35's, and plans call for the Navy to get a little over 400. But the reality is, they'll never get anywhere near those numbers. Why? Budget realities. The drawback of hyper-high-tech aircraft is a hyper-high-price. Both SecDef Gates, and Congress is calling for defense cuts, especially in expensive big ticket items. If the F-35 survives at all, there's a good chance the Navy cancels it's version in favor of the much-cheaper Super Hornet. I'm seeing projections that in a best case scenario, at current costs, USAF gets no more than 1200 F-35's. And again, one of the Frank Commission's recommendation was to cancel the F-35.
No matter what happens, the US is looking at a radically shrinking USAF and reduced Naval air arm, and fairly soon, within this decade. There simply isn't the money to buy everything the services want. The "cheap" F-35 now costs as much as the much more capable F-22 itself.
Just FYI, I've become a critic of the "low numbers, hyper tech" approach. I'd like a level of tech somewhat better than our adversaires, but I'd also like high numbers of aircraft and ships too. That means making some compromises in level of technology. I don't want to go back to utter simplicity and stamped steel, but at the same time, I think we've gotten something horribly wrong when the richest nation on Earth can't even afford the weapons on their drawing boards. I for one am an advocate of "evolutionary > revoltionary" in defense acquisitions now. I think we shoudl simply build updated versions of current designs (the Navy is doing this to some extent with the Super Hornet, which comes in at under $50 million apiece, compared to the F-35 which is projected to be around $122 million apiece on average).
Yes, get as much tech as you can afford, but afford it. Because quantity really does have a quality all it's own.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Also, several of them weren't removed through war, despite actual wars being fought against their regimes.
A rather pointless list that.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
...an interesting article here regarding this story about the arrest of Manning after the information that were given by Adrian Lamo.
Until the skies turn blue...
Until the air of freedom strikes us...
The last link points to this article. /. or what?
"THE FIRST POST - news and views that matter"
Is this site trying to parody
The info comes from an excerpt from the Manning/Lamo chat logs.
One of Mannings jobs was investigating Iraqi dissidents. One document they thought was a lead turned out to be a scholarly critique of the government's finances, not a call to arms. Manning went to the officer in charge to explain the mistake. Manning was ordered to ignore the innocence of the message and continue using it to round up people.
(02:35:46 PM) Manning: was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police... for printing "anti-Iraqi literature"... the iraqi federal police wouldn't cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the "bad guys" were, and how significant this was for the FPs... it turned out, they had printed 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...
(02:36:27 PM) Manning: everything started slipping after that... i saw things differently
Knowing that being falsely arrested in a war zone for dissident activities, especially where the USA already had a proven history (Abu Ghraib) of war crimes and torture it's a pretty safe bet that would have happened to some of the people who'd have been falsely arrested.
Thus is was pretty obvious that the order was illegal.
After that Manning started looking more into the issue and found the video and other documents.
Hope that the US Mill gets their hands on the guy.
Send in an A team .. .and grab this dirt bag. Set him up a nice cozy spot in some far away place and sweat him for a bit.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
Usually if a person is making an argument the burden is on them to provide proof. That's the way it works. It's also a lot better because it keeps things grounded in fact, rather than ending up with a game of telephone where people go around repeating things they heard. You can see where the latter system leads by reading the many chain emails that go around. Consider that not everything is easy to find on Google. This is, because it was a well publicized Internet-based story that can be summarized in a few search terms that are relatively unusual in combination, but there are plenty of important things that don't fit that mold. Furthermore, there's a big difference between finding a web page mentioning something and finding a good discussion by a reliable source. So, there are a lot of reasons it's worthwhile to go ahead and cite a source if you know about an issue. Slashdot (indeed, the net and the world in general) would be a hell of a lot better if people did it as a matter of course.
Also consider that it makes a lot more sense practically for the person originally making a claim to cite his sources. What did you and the other replies say? Essentially that it's so easy to Google. Well that would seem to be a good argument that it would be really easy to cite a source. And what makes more sense, the one person making the claim doing this work once or the many people reading the claim replicating the same work?
Long story short, I think the GP was dead on for commenting that if you care enough to post about something like this (not necessarily common knowledge and possibly controversial), you ought to cite a source.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
i just said don't be trapped in history
and you can accuse the usa of invading haiti because of manifest destiny after the earthquake
LOL
seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
it's 2010. your brain is stuck in 1910. there just MIGHT be other motivations in the world today when nations act. try to imagine that possibility, and stop being stuck in the past
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Okay that's one. I did a quick search for the other story (about the boarding of that ship trying to break the Gaza blockade). The site I looked at just showed two photos, each with a knife showing at the edge of the original that has been cropped to focus on the primary subject of the picture. It looked like something that could have been the product of intensional bias but also could equally well be explained by an ordinary attempt at framing the central subject matter. Usually I apply Hanlon's Razor to such things.
Now, if you know more about it, perhaps you could point to site that has some more thorough, convincing, or extensive discussion. Maybe there were a lot more than 2 examples, which would change the interpretation. That would be one big advantage to citing a specific source in the first place. Since you know something about it, you can point people to the best source of information, and you'll be a lot more convincing that way.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
canada is an imperialistic bully:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
what i just said about canada, of course, is retarded
but its a demonstration of the way you look at nations: you arbitrarily pick the worst aspects of the nation's behavior from the distant past, implant your deepest fears upon that distant worst behavior, then uniformly use that as the standard for that nation's behavior forever more
"When history shows us over and over that a nation acts in a certain way, why do you think it's "lazy" for me to use that as evidence for my point of view?"
yes, 100%: you're intellectually lazy, and cynical (always a moronic useless replacement for real thought). your worldview is flat out logically incoherent and completely useless
say i shoplifted when i was 13 years old. when i am 50 years old, will you still think of me as a shoplifter, and nothing more? i think you can clearly understand how wrong and unjust this way of thinking about people is. now understand its also a wrong way to think about nations
but then again, as demonstrated by your treatment of the metis, you're a typical canadian imperialistic aggressor (that's sarcasm, if you haven't noticed)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Consider that not everything is easy to find on Google. ... Furthermore, there's a big difference between finding a web page mentioning something and finding a good discussion by a reliable source. So, there are a lot of reasons it's worthwhile to go ahead and cite a source if you know about an issue.
It's all true, except for one thing. In this particular case, it is extremely easy to find on Google, and you immediately get links to sources that most people would consider reliable. There's no need to over-generalize. I don't like JFGI responses either when the implication is to sift through pages of results, but in this case, it's the story that has, apparently, been on the front pages recently. I don't think mentioning that in a discussion should require a reference - it is reasonable to assume that the reader willing to debate on that topic has either heard about it already, or will educate himself and obtain references on his own with minimal effort. I mean, does he also have to provide a reference for the fact that a Turkish ship was boarded by Israeli commandos in the first place?
In any case, negative reaction to GGP's comment was likely provoked more by its extremely offensive tone than anything else.
progress is real
slavery has been banished in the west, women's suffrage is the standard, etc
meanwhile, if you believe progress is not real, then by your cynical ignorance you are part of the problem in this world: the acceptance of a vile status quo. that is the real value of your emtpy cynicism: you enable the people you hate, by abandoning the possibility that we cna overcome them. if, for example, gw bush is someone you hate, your attitude is "yeah but people like him in power is the way it's always been and always will be". therefore, YOU enable the next gw bush with your empty cynicism. you've abandoned your own conscience, you are a cowardly asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
either progress is real or it is not
if you believe progress is real in this world, then we have no argument. however, you are no aid to progress in the world if you simply retire to your ivory tower and declare everyone beneath your high holy standards. furthermore, i never implied any acceptance of a status quo: somewhere between believing in no progress and believing in impossible progress is REALISM, which is the point i am criticizing you from
REALISTIC standards of progress are the only thing that matters. any fool can declare a list of golden standards. a kindergartener can say "war is stupid, no one should fight." yeah, ok. and? fucking pointless
any one who wants to make a difference in this world involves themselves with genuine deliverables, actual reduction in the kind of suffering and menace we see today according to an intelligent understanding of how to do those modest goals. and thus, progress actually occurs
not some retarded declaration that the state of the world and the countries in it is bad, and therefore i'm retiring from it all because it's all so difficult and beneath me and it gives me a headache. pffffffft. sorry your high holiness, that the world is ugly. you're such a great help, really (not)
get out of your ivory tower, and get in the mud, and struggle with the rest of us. or shut up, as your pronouncements from on yonder high about how we haven't met lofty idealistic goals is of no use to anyone
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The original comment mentioned, "Reuters released pictures from the Israeli assault on the "peace flotilla", they edited out the weapons in the hands of the "peaceful" members of the flotilla and the wounded Israeli soldiers." What you get depends a fair bit on the search terms you choose, and I mostly got blogs I'd never heard of. And as is frequently the case amongst blogs, it seems to be mostly blogs commenting on other blogs. It would be far superior to have the originating piece of journalism, or the best sourced/written one, or one from the most reputable source. Just getting the page rank grab bag of blogs (together with a bunch of pages from highly-ranked news sites that are simply using Reuters photos of the incident, not discussing this controversy) is much worse.
In the end my impression of this particular controversy is that there are just two photos that had the edges cropped off, and while this could be intentional it looks like a pretty decent place to apply Hanlon's Razor. Now perhaps there's is an article out there that makes a much stronger case, and had that poster included that his point might be a lot more convincing.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
... that the current way of thinking is that if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about. What are they so worried about, that they're trying to keep hidden?
Also see Eric Schmidt, and "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" - I think this applies nicely here.
The US will do the same that Israel did several months ago...an illegal execution...
Dave
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
there is no jeopardy
if there is no jeopardy, there is no passion
if there is no passion, what's the fucking point?
lock yourself in your ivory tower, look down your nose at us struggling in the mud, and shut up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And there is a good reason why it is impossible to find strong leaders. The moment anybody has leadership potential arises, a team of very experienced investigators begin to investigate this individual to find something on them. Given enough time (years), it's highly probable that the individual being investigated will say or do something stupid and thats it, they are permanently compromised. They might go on to become a congressman, a senator, a President, and when they do somebody will have something from their past from which to blackmail them with.
Everybody eventually makes a mistake and even if you don't make a mistake, they can frame you up and make it look like you did. The media has so much control over how situations are perceived that you don't have to do anything wrong or be guilty of anything, you just have to look bad or look like you did something wrong. This is the problem with politics.
The problem isn't so much that we can't find people with the right nature to do the job, it's that the people with the right nature to not be corrupted by power will also have the nature to be corrupted in other ways. If you have the wrong kind of sex, if you have the wrong kind of thoughts or opinions, if you used the wrong kind of drugs, if you LOOK like a criminal (anybody can be made to look like one), if you aren't normal in every sense of the word you probably wont make it as a politician and that is the problem.
We expect the best politicians to look, think, act normal. We expect them all to come from perfect backrounds. We have this media image of politicians as being boycout leaders who live the perfect life and go to the best schools before running for office. Maybe the best politicians don't all come from the same backround?
If the goal were simply to find the individuals least likely to be corrupted, they could find that. They are looking for people from a specific backround, with a clean image, (like Barack Obama). But in order to make it or survive in some of these backrounds sometimes compromising is the best way to get things done. At this point politicians are basically like artists, actors, actresses, they have a little bit of actual power but the special interest groups and individuals operating in the shadows have so much on them that their power is very limited.
The politician can be influenced in so many ways that we've never had a politician free from the influence of different special interest groups. If you are a career politician the key to getting re-elected is compromise.