Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks, Money, and Ron Paul
Another day, another dozen WikiLeaks stories, several of which revolve around money. PayPal has given in to pressure to release WikiLeaks funds, though they still won't do further transactions. Mobile payment firm Xipwire is attempting to take PayPal's place. "We do think people should be able to make their own decisions as to who they donate to." PCWorld wonders if the WikiLeaks' money woes could lead to great adoption of Bitcoin, the peer-to-peer currency system we've discussed in the past. Meanwhile, Representative Ron Paul spoke in defense of WikiLeaks on the House floor Thursday, asking a number of questions, including, "Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?" The current uproar over WikiLeaks has prompted Paul Vixie to call for an end to the DDoS attacks and Vladimir Putin to break out a metaphor involving cows and hockey pucks.
We don't have to wonder, since the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeapordized by the Wikileaks releases.
So what are they so mad about?
Being made to look like spoiled children, that's what. Being shown to be backstabbing hypocrites. This is the political equivalent of being pantsed on the world stage.
There are a small handful of votes where Ron Paul has voted in a way that would be upsetting to left-liberals (gay adoption in DC comes to mind), but aside from that, I don't think there is anyone in DC more passionately committed to personal freedom than Ron Paul. The strong support for Wikileaks is just another example.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Vixie's fallacy is that the law is impartial, and that the rule of law does not favor either side but instead wants to distribute "justice".
That's not the case.
The law always supports the side that makes the law.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I like that guy more by the minute.
Seriously, the US has caused enough trouble around the globe for a century, let someone else fuck up the planet for a change.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop.
You say nothing damning? What cables have you been reading?
In July 2009, a confidential originating from the U.S. State Department ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on the leader of the United Nations, Secretary general Ban Ki-moon, and other top U.N. officials.[1] The intelligence info the diplomats were ordered to gather included biometric information, passwords, and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
In 2009, the U.S. manipulated — via spying, threats, and bribes — the Copenhagen global climate change summit to prevent any agreement to be reached leading to the overall failure of summit.
According to a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul, Vice President of Afghanistan, Ahmad Zia Massoud, was found carrying $52 million in cash that he “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.”
There's more but that's what I found in about 2 minutes on wikipedia.
And the government works for us, they have no right to secrets. It is completely different from a private citizen's communications being leaked.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
The reporters who reveled the watergate scandal, also kept lots of it secrets and didn't divulge into every piece of paper the republican's created that year, only the parts that referenced the scandal.
Wikileaks simply dumped the entire contents onto the web. So far there hasn't been anything really damning about them, except the fact that diplomatic relationships are now shattered across the world.
That's why those of us who are paying attention compare Wikileaks to the Pentagon Papers, not to Watergate. The Pentagon Papers were also a verbatim dump of masses of documents which contained a lot of mundane stuff which Beacon Press published, in addition to the juicier excerpts published by the NYT.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Don't you start. This discussion has been done a million times before on /., particularly around the time of the Microsoft antitrust trials.
There is more than one definition of monopoly, and only one of those is "has 100% market share". The word can be - and frequently is - used to mean "has so much market share that the market is distorted".
Paypal and Amazon both gave in to US government pressure to eliminate their services to WikiLeaks. Since WikiLeaks depends on internet presence and donations to exist, it's no different than cutting the power to a house. In this case, it signaled to any other internet provider that they would no longer be friends to the US government, which per the norm, acts like a local mafia boss in enforcing its will in the neighborhood.
The United States differs from other States only in that it does not overtly tell someone to shut up. It threatens charges. It stays quiet while members of it's government and celebrity punditry call for assassination. It sends a few spooks around to anyone connected with you. It's a base form of terrorism, and differs from the KGB only in that it has to look like an accident if they decide to eliminate you. They like plausible deniability because the miserable pro-authoritarian sycophants like you can pretend that those things don't happen, and you'll continue to support the government regardless of how badly they ignore the laws they are supposed to be following.
Take a look at the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. What is the effective difference of the Chinese government throwing him in prison, and the US leaning on Sweden to bring back trumped up charges so Assange could be detained while they build a bullshit case to do the same thing? We just have better PR.
Honestly, you're fucking pathetic. You are everything that is wrong with democracy today, because you don't even know what freedom of speech is, or why it's important. I hope you end up in the society you dream of, protesting the latest corporate takeover of your publicly funded infrastructure from your "Free Speech Zone" like the coward you are in order to keep what little freedom they decide to let you keep for the time being.
A government will advocate for freedom of the press as long as that freedom is used to embarrass other governments and further it's own interests. Once the those things get turned around and focused on the advocate country they quickly call it espionage and treason. If Wikileaks focused on China and their members were hunted down in other countries and then Jailed in China, the state department would call them political prisoners and demand their release. Citizens of the United States should listen very carefully to what their representative have to say about this issue. It will show exactly what kind of freedom they support. Freedom of speech or freedom to agree.
I agreed with everything in your post--except for one word in your title. Communist!? Seriously?
Overwhelmingly it's been the supposed conservative defenders of freedoms that have been throwing a fit over Wikileaks, or inferring that Assange should be assassinated (one of those clowns was advisor to Canada's current prime minister, who heads the so-called Conservative party).
Call them neo-conservative if you must, as libertarian Ron Paul did in his speech.
Meanwhile, the same neo-conservatives are labelling Wikileaks supporters as leftist, anarchists, socialists, communists, or terrorist sympathizers intent on disrupting the world order. Yet on CBC, Canada's supposed pinko socialist news source (according to neo-conservatives, anyway), comments left on their wikileaks news articles are overwhelmingly in support of Wikileaks.
Seriously, I hope you don't think suppression of freedoms is a strictly "left" trait, the "right" is doing its best to do it better.
They're not conservative or liberal. They're authoritarian, just like Stalin.
Sure, if you want to go back to before the Revolution communism meant something else, but I'm not trying to convince an academic in some paper. I'm trying to convince a citizen that they're seriously fucking up the whole concept of democracy and the importance of freedom of expression.
Step away from this "left versus right" thing. In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism? Does it make a difference whether a small elite group rules the state which rules commerce, or whether a small elite group rules commerce which rules the state? What if that group is an enlightened oligarchy, or a backwards junta? I suppose you could make a very weak argument that intellectual genocide has more merit than ethnic genocide, but I wouldn't agree. They are both two sides of the same coin: murder to create order.
The measurements of government cannot be drawn on a line graph. Even Canada has been waging it's war on personal freedom through the suppression of drug use, which is the very definition of totalitarianism: prosecuting someone for exercising personal freedom.
Yeah, Ron Paul is a total loon. He's so crazy that I've heard him consistently espouse:
1. Having a government that operates within its budget. ...
2. Having a government that respects personal freedoms by not subjecting airline passengers to being irradiated and/or fondled.
3. Being honest about the Iraq war and how we got into it.
4. Ending our country's imperialistic bent by drawing down on our military deployments.
5. Taking a serious look at the secretive central banking system that is given extraordinary power to fuck with our economy with little oversight.
Just to get it straight, you're 99% against crazy whacky shit like this, right?
Given what you've posted so far, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on your seeming out-of-left-field attack on Rand Paul. Didn't his recent political opponent actually dig up some dirt that Rand Paul was ANTI-CHRISTIAN? I think that Rand Paul then gave the required "I'm a good Christian" response to that, but my guess is the guy is probably an agnostic.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?