Michael Moore Posts Julian Assange's Bail

digitaldc quotes Michael Moore in a story running on the Huffington Post where he says "Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. Furthermore, I (Michael Moore) am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars."

Comments

Re:Empty theatrics

[Pojut]

um...

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is back in court today, and has been granted bail by a British judge. He has been in a British prison for a week after being denied bail last week. Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden. It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

It's good to have allies

[Animats]

Having a successful Hollywood producer with a track record of successfully embarrassing big companies and governments as a supporter can't hurt.

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

Except that his movies made at least one completely false statement that I know of for sure. He said that factory that was making the Titan IV was making ballistic missiles. It is not and has never been a ballistic missile. It was based on the Titan II which was ballistic missile but was retired from service long ago.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Joe Jay Bee]

One can be successful without being good or honest. By most standards, Mr Moore is very, very successful.

Re:It's good to have allies

[mdmkolbe]

One? Try 59 in a single film. (Ok, some of those are not complete lies, just misleading half-truths.)

Re:It's good to have allies

[Americano]

When he purports to be creating "documentaries," yes, it kind of does.

You see, documentaries are generally held to be factual representations of some aspect of life that the filmmaker wants to... document. Now, if Mr. Moore titled his movies with such names as "The Conspiracy that I, Michael Moore, am sure is behind the 9/11 attacks!" then you could say that they are documentaries: documenting his views and opinions.

But he represents these opinions and views and interpretations as objective, factual depictions of a situation, and they are demonstrably not in many cases. How much trust can you give to the work of a documentary filmmaker who is known to be distorting the truth, or even deliberately lying, in order to bolster his own viewpoint?

Would you trust the Discovery Channel to tell you the truth if they released a documentary purporting to show the reality of how lions and other animals interact in the wild, and that movie turned out to be Disney's The Lion King, complete with musical numbers?

Re:It's good to have allies

[LWATCDR]

No but it erases all trust. The US has not made any new ICBMs since the MX in the late 80s. All the production lines have been closed for a while. Our current ICBMs are Minutemen which where produced in the 60s and maybe early 70s. We have updated the electronics of course. The MX was retired to meet treaty obligations.
The Trident is an SLBM and those are also out of production but we are making spare parts for them too keep them in service.
Other sites list many other errors in his movies but that was the one I knew was a total fabrication.
But since you are an AC I will explain it to you. Whenever someone presents data to me and I find some that is completely false I believe it is wise to cast all the data as false until proven other wise. If they lied about that then what else are they lying about? When a persons agenda means more then the truth they are a danger to all and should never be trusted. I am not talking about errors since we all make them but this was a claiming to be a documentary. And his point was that we where making ICBMs just like we where claiming that Iraq was.
That statement was 100% false and any fact checking effort would have proven that. He picked a factory that made ULVs that was near him and lied. If he had looked up the Titan IV he would have seen that it was not a ballistic missile but a launch vehicle.
In theory you could use it as a ballistic missile just as you could use a Learjet as a nuclear bomber but that is just more justification of a lie.

Re:It's good to have allies

[blair1q]

I started reading that, but the first "lie" was merely dramatic license. I've seen lists like this before and they're all like that.

Moore's use of dramatic methods to tell the story are not lying, not in the way that the right wing's diversions, obfuscations, and blatant lies are lying.

In the end, Moore tells you the truth, and the GOP and its corporate masters and its gibbering minions take your money and move on to their next lie.

Re:It's good to have allies

[Cederic]

My understanding is that it's a collection of public and private individuals funding Assange's bail, not Wikileaks.

I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to seek to defend criminal charges on staff members that are entirely unrelated to their operations, although I could probably argue why they should :)

Re:It's good to have allies

[segedunum]

This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden

Well, we can only go on what we know and we know that Bush and Bin Laden, certainly through his family, have invested in a lot of companies together. The Bin Ladens are very well known, wealthy and extremely well connected in Saudi Arabia. The notion that Bush knows nothing about him is just plain fishy.

...and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.

Well, all we know is that not a trace of Osama Bin Laden has ever been found. Not a single lead. Not a sausage. Nothing. This is from a guy and his supporters who are supposed to be propping up a worldwide terrorism network who are well connected and well funded. Oh, and there's a lot of companies with directors who are friends of George Bush who are making quite a bit of money from the 'rebuilding' of Afghanistan. Basically, it's in their interests to keep the whole thing going.

I think people are more then entitled to ask what the hell is going on. The trouble with this stuff is that you almost get a kind of 'reverse conspiracy theory' effect and governments have learned to use this phenomenon, especially when they do something bare faced and obvious. Basically, it's so unbelievable for most people that no amount of evidence will convince them that there is even the smallest thing wrong. Note, we're not talking about grand conspiracy theories here, we're just talking about admitting that something is wrong. The notion that there is something wrong and the consequences would rock their cosy little world too much, and so, they will go into denial and even defend the status quo in order to protect their own bubble of perceived security.

Re:It's good to have allies

[segedunum]

Nevertheless, companies where Bush's friends are directors (Halliburton, most notably) have profited handsomely.

Re:It's good to have allies

[oodaloop]

Tell that to the people who watched it. Everyone I know who watched it without looking up the evidence said that Bush let them go. The way it was presented made it seem like Bush did it. The scene takes place at the airport on the day flights are starting up again after 9/11 with the bin Ladens waiting to fly. They didn't actually fly for another 2 weeks, once they were cleared by the FBI. But again, Moore made it seem they flew that day. It was all deliberately misleading and left out crucial facts. The whole movie is that way.

Re:It's good to have allies

[hey!]

Well, I'm ambivalent about the guy.

On one hand, I'd prefer for people to engage in a fair, honest and open debate, scrutinizing the arguments and supporting evidence for all sides, condemning sensational, propagandistic methods no matter in whose favor those methods are employed.

On the other hand, that preference makes me a lonely, lonely man.

What most people seem to want is to force people who disagree with them to put down the tools of propaganda without being required do so themselves. They want ideas they don't like to be easy to refute. They want the reassurance of only hearing opinions that confirm what they already believe. They want to be patted on the back for thinking the way everyone else does, but expressing it in a slightly different way. In other words, they're more than delighted to be mental sheep in wolves' clothing.

Let me tell you, being the one who points out the irrationality of believing in and dishonesty of promoting your side's urban legend du jour does not earn you gratitude or popularity.

Now I think to actually earn the label "honest",it's not enough to stick to the truth. You have to speak the whole truth without distortion or distraction. That kind of honesty exists, but it is exclusively a private virtue. If honesty were a commodity, it would have no market value.

Under the circumstances, I'd say Mr. Moore at least serves a useful function. He provides at least a *kind* of balance to right wing and commercial propaganda. It makes no sense to demand he be scrupulous and fair because that is not a standard to which we as a society hold our information sources.

Short of developing a replacement for humanity as we know it, dueling propaganda is as close to balance as we're ever likely to get.

Re:It's good to have allies

[oodaloop]

Bin Laden has something like 55 siblings. His family outcast him years before 9/11 and he hasn't been in contact since. There was no reason to hold his family, so the FBI let them go after duly investigating them. That had nothing to do with the current TSA regulations.

Re:Doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

Even many people on the left hate Moore. Not help I would want.

But a lot of people in the middle and somewhat on the left think he makes some brilliant points.

I applaud Mr. Moore for doing this.

Posts it where??

[OzPeter]

Someone tell me the IP address of the website where I see Assange's bail.

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

I despise Moore as a person. I enthusiastically applaud his work in pulling off the lamb outfit from world governments and corporations.

It's kind of like Mel Gibson...sure, he may be a dick, but he makes awesome movies.

ummmm....

[BigBadBus]

Moore has only posted SOME of the bail money; the title of the article needs changing.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[BobMcD]

So, since he's fat, he's lazy? Piercing insight, that.

I don't care much for Moore, but he's doing the right thing here, so maybe store the venom up for a day when he's not?

uhhhh, thanks, but...

[HeckRuler]

That's probably going to hurt Julian in the long run. Michael Moore is kind of the Rush Limbaugh of the Liberals, and as odd as it is, it seems that the two-party system here has decided that Wikileaks is on the liberal side. So this will only re-enforce that.

I'm still confused why the people that are supposed to be for a smaller government would be nay saying evidence that big government is doing horrible things behind our backs.

Re:uhhhh, thanks, but...

[Ihmhi]

If I needed almost $400,000 for bail I wouldn't give a shit if it came from a South American dictator. The sooner my ass gets out of whatever shithole, overcrowded prison I'm crammed in, the better.

Good stuff..

[NuKe_MoNgOoSe]

I love Michael Moore he is a voice of logic and even thinking in a world full of people who hang off the flag and are lead by the nose by a government who doesnt give two shits about its people against expanding its power and influence over the rest of the world. Sure, he is looking to get shot but it isnt the first time Michael has struck a blow against the establishment and I dont imagine it will be the last.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

Why doesn't Michael Moore just move to a country more to his liking since he clearly hates the one he is a citizen of? Cuba, perhaps?

A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.

Leave, Michael! You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.

If you think that allowing a government to flat out lie to us is 'loving your country', then I'd personally rather YOU leave. I don't care for Moore, but I care even less for all the sheep begging to be shorn!

Your distaste for Michael Moore is causing you to lobby against THE TRUTH for crying out loud. And I'm sorry, but that's just morally bankrupt.

Re:Doomed

[patjhal]

I do not understand comments like these. I have no reason to dislike him as a person from what I know of his personal life, but lets face it, I do not really know the guy. Hes not my neighbor. I love the professional work he does. There does seem to be allot of FUD attached to his person mainly due to people wanting to discredit him. I find people who believe it do not look deeply into whatever issue is involved.

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.

Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off.

Re:Alternative headline

[commodore64_love]

Although I don't like Michael Moore (he's comparable to a propagandist) he sometimes does the right thing. His mid-90s movie about manufacturing an excuse to declare war (and give the president a boost in popularity) was very good. And this act to bail a Reporter out of jail and protect the Right to a Free Press is also very good.

Without wikileaks we wouldn't know that US Soldiers were killing innocent journalists and children (the Pentagon denied the event happened). That Hillary Clinton was stealing credit card numbers from foreign diplomats. The content of the ACTA treaty to make backing-up your CDs or DVDs or MP3s and illegal act. And on and on and on.

Democracy can not work when the people are kept in the dark about what their public servants are doing.

Not a Michael Moore Fan

[diskofish]

I am not a Michael Moore fan, but he should be lauded for the action. Hopefully others will follow Mr. Moore's lead and take a stand for freedom of speech.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Anonymous Coward]

It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

It should be mentioned that this statement stems from the fact that she is currently on a three month stay in Israel with an ecumenical Christian group. She has been blogging how excited she is about this trip for months.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[Bemopolis]

FTFA:

I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. [emphasis to aid jackasses who can't fucking read]

But hey, look at me quoting what a person actually says he did instead of trusting the headline written by a Slashdot editor.

Re:Moore Claims Credit!

[nick357]

In the linked article he says "...I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail...". Whoever wrote the slashdot headline is the one who said "Michael Moore Posts Julian Assange's Bail"

No money actually required

[maroberts]

You do not have to post any actual money when you provide a surety in the UK. You only have to show that you have the sum available and are liable for the sum in the event the (alleged) offender breaches bail conditions in some significant manner. See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/bail.html for a further explanation.

Re:Doomed

[Feyshtey]

I enthusiastically applaud his work in pulling off the lamb outfit from world governments and corporations.

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.

Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?

Re:Just Leave

[Opportunist]

I guess he's much like me. I love the US. I love the country, I love the people.

I just hate the government and the way it's run.

only if

[unity100]

youre an american maybe. from the outside, we see moore a hero. maybe its possible that the endless propaganda perpetrated by corporate owned mass media have twisted you american people's views about moore, just as it twisted your views about wikileaks.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

Moore went on to talk about how Cuba's health care system is amazing. He took a trip to cuba and documented their health care, pristine offices, amazing clinics, etc.

Turns out that's all for show. Cuban citizens REALLY get healthcare in dirty shacks full of maggots and flies. The rich get the pristine hospitals.

Moore is most famous for releasing a film called Farenheit 9/11, a "documentary" about Bush and 9/11 or something... it was 10 years ago, I stopped caring before he released it. Anyway, it was full of hyperbole, misrepresentation, and sensationalism. One fact that got a large amount of attention was that the President was informed of the first attack on his way to a grade school; and that he told the CIA to keep him informed. He spent 7 minutes reading a kid's book to first graders during the attack. This was covered in the film... as if the appropriate response would be to announce to a bunch of first graders that the nation has come under attack, or something; more to the point, canceling the president's visit can be done cleanly, but at that point in time there wasn't much of a nuclear imperative to mobilize the president immediately. No world leaders were calling. Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening.

Other such shit in that film was commentary on the Iraqi war. Seriously? Moore showed the world that the Iraqis were quite happy and carefree under Saddam, and that deposing him destroyed their lives. If you believe that, I've got a brook in bridgeland to sell you....

Moore is a flaming psycho with a warped view of reality and a strong desire to push his views regardless of facts. He doesn't want people to think; he wants people to side with him like sheep. We have enough bullshit artists in the media; we don't need more.

Re:only if

[Graff]

from the outside, we see moore a hero. maybe its possible that the endless propaganda perpetrated by corporate owned mass media have twisted you american people's views about moore

The problem is that most of Moore's "facts" which he presents in his movies turn out to be no more than elaborate fabrications. He routinely takes quotes out of context, overlays a speech over video from another event, re-arranges video and audio, creates set-up interviews where he asks the guy one question and then re-shoots himself asking another question so the answer is presented in the manner which Moore wants, and many more methods of turning real events into fictional ones.

There are plenty of websites out there that take Moore's movies and show, "fact" by "fact", just how badly Moore manipulates reality. Now this doesn't mean that Moore's topics aren't worth investigating, it just means that you can't take anything he says as the truth. Do your own investigation into the truth and you'll be far better off than relying on Moore to do the job for you.

Re:only if

[vegiVamp]

Isn't that pretty much the modus operandi of most American "news" sources, not to mention government institutions and politicians ?

Re:only if

[kaiser423]

Nothing seriously needing George W. Bush's attention was actually happening.

What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?

9/11 just happened, and it wasn't anything seriously enough happening to require our President's attention?!? God damn man, seriously?!?!?

Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that? What is this England, and he's royalty, some figurehead?

Seriously, I am just mouth agape at this point. My god.

Re:only if

[Xelios]

I take a bit of a different view on the guy. I wouldn't call his films documentaries, and I wouldn't call them propaganda either. Honestly, it looks like he's just trying to get people to care. He could certainly go about it more honestly, but the sad truth is if it doesn't generate a lot of controversy the public simply doesn't care enough to take notice. And if there's one thing his films have done it's bring the issues they're about into the public spotlight.

What's that old adage? "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see". It's no different just because it's Michael Moore doing the talking.

Re:only if

[bluefoxlucid]

What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck?!?! Fucking A, do you really believe this?

Yeah, there wasn't much he could do at the current time. There was no source of attack known and he can't personally gather intelligence on this. Someone will tell his secretary if Russia calls, and the CIA will be informed, and he will get a notification immediately.

Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear?

Already happening, that's what the intelligence community does. If they know it, he'll know it.

Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc?

Well, generally the state of new york and the locality of new york city are going to respond first. Nobody claimed an attack yet, so we're not automatically at war. Plane crashes are considered a "disaster," not an "attack." So the governor of New York State or the mayor of New York City would be calling in the New York National Guard, fire department, etc, and setting disaster areas.

At this point, it's the President's job to either run around going "what what I'm confused did somebody blow shit up what's happening?!" or kick his feet up on his desk smoking a cigar telling "the boys" to keep him informed. There's no cigars allowed in first grade classrooms.

Re:only if

[tophermeyer]

Like, maybe getting informed as to what was happening beyond shit whispered in his ear? Calling up National Guard, declaring disaster areas, etc? He's not supossed to do any of that?.

No.... He wasn't really supposed to do any of that. Seriously.

Intelligence activity takes time to come up from analysts through the various levels of filters until it gets to the President. We have entire agencies of analysts whose job it is to figure out what is going on and inform him. At that point him doing his job is saying "keep me informed".

And more importantly, the rest of those responsibilities mostly fall under the State and local government. Specifically the National Guard would have had to have been called up by then Governor Pataki. Local emergency response was handled at the municipal level by Giuliani (quite aggressively I might add, he had to be evacuated from several command posts during the course of the day because buildings were falling down around him).

Unless and until a State Governor officially requests federal assistance, the President literally has no authority to send federal troops or resources. Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency, I am shocked that more people don't understand this.

Re:only if

[Graff]

Unless and until a State Governor officially requests federal assistance, the President literally has no authority to send federal troops or resources. Given the number of times this came up during GWB's Presidency, I am shocked that more people don't understand this.

The sad truth is that most people don't actually understand how the system of government in the United States works. Most people seem to assume that the President of the United States is some kind of king or supreme dictator who can move mountains at will and reports to no one. The reality is that, while the President does have some serious powers he is also severely held in check by the other two branches of the government, the constitution, the states themselves, and international treaties, relations, and laws.

I fear that we all need to go back to school and be taught exactly how this representative republic works before we should be allowed to participate in the political process in any manner.

Re:only if

[_Sprocket_]

9/11 just happened, and it wasn't anything seriously enough happening to require our President's attention?!? God damn man, seriously?!?!?

The United States is not a micro-manage Real Time Strategy game.

Re:only if

[tophermeyer]

It took him what, like 7 minutes to finish up what he was doing with those kids and move on to responding to the attack? It takes me that long to take a satisfying dump, but you expect him to magically be up to speed on the situation and already be engaged in a response?

I would rather have a President that understands his role in domestic emergency management, and doesn't jump the gun by rashly responding to threats he doesn't fully understand. Unlike some other emergencies during his Presidency, 9/11 was a pretty damn fine example of emergency responders doing their jobs without anybody butting in. Are you really proposing that the nation would have been better served by him terrifying a bunch of schoolchildren to take charge of a response that he was unqualified to personally handle.

For God's sake, AC, think of the children!

Goose Gander

[Zero__Kelvin]

"It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

It should be mentioned that this statement stems from the fact that she is currently on a three month stay in Israel with an ecumenical Christian group. She has been blogging how excited she is about this trip for months."

Assange was excited about posting the documents for quite some time, but when he was busy doing so rather than reporting to those same police he was "not cooperating with police." Why is this any different?

Re:Goose Gander

[moogied]

Because it is NOT his burden. He is NOT guilty as of right now, he has no requirement to submit to this crap until they released there warrant. Once they released it he took about a week or so to turn himself in. Thats a very standard delay period in international cases like this, it takes a few days for paper work to travel around for lawyers to review and make sure everything is in order. Then people need a day or two to set there personal stuff in place, THEN he can go submit himself for questioning.. which generally means a stay in Jail.

Re:Goose Gander

[luther349]

first rule of getting off charges. never corporate with police.hell its the only rule. never talk to them without your attorney. 90% of all people in jail are because they talked.

Re:Goose Gander

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Doesn't matter. They talked. As soon as you say anything to a cop beyond name/rank/serial number and "I want a lawyer", the police will find a charge to hang on you based on what you tell them.

Re:Goose Gander

[Beardo the Bearded]

Go watch the Youtube videos "Never talk to the police" and then come back to the thread.

"I have nothing to say"

"My lawyer's name is [their name here]"

Re:Goose Gander

[Afell001]

Keep in mind that a police officer isn't necessarily after the truth. If they end up with the truth, then it is a happy coincidence. No, what they want is an open and shut investigation that will result in a conviction. These are the results that get them better performance reviews, promotions and pay raises, and gets the case closed so they can go on to other, more important work. In some nations, it is legal for a police officer to use any and every means at his or her disposal to get the information that will bring a case to a close. This can include, in many cases, methods that can be described as torture. In some countries, a coerced confession carries legal weight.

If it is your option, remain silent. If it is your right, exercise this right and bring any questioning to an end as quickly as possible. If officers continue to question you after you have exercised your right, then request that it be noted for the record that you requested to remain silent, and do your best to remain silent. If you are an American visiting a foreign nation, you can request a representative from the embassy who is familiar with local laws and customs. And if the crime is substantial, get a lawyer. Do not rely on the fact that you know you are innocent; get a lawyer even if you know you are.

Re:Goose Gander

[Moryath]

The problem with that is, most cops in the US are corrupt dickheads who will beat you down or arrest you on the "fuck it we'll find something to charge you with later" principle if they don't think you are being properly "respectful" to them.

And yes, this includes telling them "no, I don't consent to any searches." Their actual response isn't "well then I can't search you", it's "well fuck that, I'll beat you up, throw you in my car in cuffs, and while you spend 48 hours in jail we'll break your window and search your car anyways."

Re:Goose Gander

[Moryath]

Bullshit.

They all start out on the lowest rung, making ticket quota. They quickly learn every trick in the book to make it "my word vs yours" - pointing their car's nose wrong-way to block off dashcam, leaning into your car to muffle the audio recording, and so on.

By the time they graduate from traffic ticket quota days, there's no saving them - they're about number of arrests and convictions, not whether they actually did their job right, or followed the law, or got the real culprit. The goal of the police interrogator isn't to find out what you know and determine if your alibi checks out, it's to get you to say something that can be used to incriminate you, and to do so, they will pull any underhanded trick they need - drop a hint in the hallway, sit there "waiting for your lawyer" with the tape off for hours while bugging you about how "all you have to do is talk to us and you can go home", and on and on and on.

I never wanted to admit this growing up, but cops - at least, cops that come up through the corrupt US system - are slime. If not 100% of them, better than 90% of them, easily.

Re:Goose Gander

[Svartalf]

Heh...more the fool you.

Here's a gem that shoots down the premise you're trying to promulgate here...

Part 1
Part 2

These are videos of a lecture given by Professor Duane, an instructor at Regent Law School and a Experienced LEO that's moving into the Legal profession on just precisely WHY you don't do what you're talking about.

Pay particular attention to how fast someone can be deep-sixed in a courtroom on flimsy crap, stuff that a Jury would have some difficulty discounting.

Regardless of "if you don't have anything to hide"...anything can and WILL be used against you at any time.

Re:Goose Gander

[puto]

Really? Though I do not doubt many cops are "crooked" in the US I have really never had a problem with them. Of course I have always yes sir, no sirred them and not run my mouth.(over the course of 27 years of driving). And I am brown and grew up in the south. However, I work in Colombia, Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Panama, and Mexico, and would love a good ol redneck police force in these countries. If you think US cops are corrupt, you have not lived, travelled in Latin America.

Re:Goose Gander

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

And in the US, you pay taxes and are given a court-appointed attorney to represent you if you can't afford to hire one of your own.

Or are you suggesting that in the UK, your taxes get you legal representation from lawyers on par with Alan Dershowitz and William Rehnquist?

I used to think the same thing. A friend of mine was recently arrested in an airport for saying the wrong thing. (It turns out that the officer misheard what he had said but that's another story.) This friend makes $13K a year. He was denied access to a public defender. Apparently, in some jurisdictions the judge gets to decide who can afford a lawyer. The incident happened during a layover on an international flight so the charges were in a city 1000's of miles from my friend's home. He had to pay to fly himself 1/2 way across the country to appear at his court date. Travel costs alone were a huge fraction of his yearly income. Still, they denied him a public defender.

Re:Goose Gander

[freaq]

No, we have not heard it all before. In particular, noone has yet provided a reason for supposedly honest and disciplined officers to protect dishonest or dickhead officers.

Re:Doomed

[TheRaven64]

He makes some good points, but he makes them incredibly badly. He's the kind of person who could turn 'water is wet' into a controversial statement. Even when he says something that I agree with, he makes me want to argue.

Re:Doomed

[Pojut]

What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?

That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.

Releasing those kinds of documents doesn't serve a greater good. It doesnt expose any wrong-doings. It doesn't help create stability, ensure -anyone's- safety, or promote any kind of cooperation between nations. It was released to embarrass the US government and garner sensationlistic attention from a little weasle.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about...right? I mean, that's what they told us with the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretapping, so...

Not to mention that this guy released the names of confidential informants in the middle east. In doing so he signed the death warrants of those people. What greater purpose was served by releasing their names? What good will come of that? What crime did they commit? What evil are they responsible for? Where are your indignant tears for them and their families who will almost assuredly be slaughtered?

Can you find me one single recorded instance of anyone over there being killed directly because of the Iraq/Afghanistan war docs?

Re:Empty theatrics

[Keruo]

> Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden.
What annoys me with media is that they twist the sentence above to say that he's wanted for rape charges.

Sweet, Sweet Irony

[dcigary]

If would be sweet, sweet irony if it turns out that Wikileaks has something on Michael Moore, like that's he a paid corporate shill, or that he has an account on iheart12yoldboys.com. /just sayin'

Re:Sweet, Sweet Irony

[greatgreygreengreasy]

Or that he's actually the same person as Rush Limbaugh, but really both are played by the greatest actor in the world, FRED SAVAGE!

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Sockatume]

Right, it's the worst atrocities, or nothing. Nobody's supposed to condemn any of the other stuff in between. Certainly they're not supposed to address the issues that they, personally, find important. What the hell would we have then? Freedom? The hell with that.

Re:Doomed

[gstoddart]

My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.

Moore is a counterpoint to places like Fox News and CNN which screech really loudly their views. They sure as hell aren't letting the evidence speak for itself -- they speak for it, and sometimes, in lieu of it.

I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.

Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off.

Well, Sarah Palin is no different, really ... just with a different set of biases. Same goes for most of the talking heads on CNN.

Heck, I remember watching some guy on CNN several years ago saying that the crash of 2008 was coming because of all of the crap credit out there. He basically got shouted down by a bunch of arch-conservative guys who believed that it could never happen.

Re:oh gee

[Pojut]

so this is different from fox news, all the corporate news channels, how ?

Moore works to expose corruption, while corporate media generally helps enable it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[GodfatherofSoul]

Good point. There isn't really a health care crisis in this country and we weren't lied into the Iraq war. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Doomed

[rainmouse]

I despise Moore as a person. .

Michael Moore went through a mass character assassination to similar to Julian Assange. Note that as the stream of negative publicity backfired as the ulterior motives were exposed and people stopped swallowing so much shit, the pictures attached to news articles changed from an seedy looking, sneering, oily Gollum lookalike into a reasonably normal looking guy. They could both be asshats or great guys, I have no idea but I certainly don't intend to allow two faced news rag peddlers dictate my opinions of anyone.

Lacking the opportunity to meet these people within my normal social circles, I prefer to form my own opinions based upon unedited and unbiased interviews of a reasonable enough length to prevent any contextual manipulation. Sadly that's not how the news will ever portray someone, it doesn't sell so well.

Re:Doomed

[bigstrat2003]

I got disgusted with him after watching a part of Bowling for Columbine where he went to the Shopko (or some other store) where the assailants bought bullets. He then proceeded to badger one of the cashiers at length, insinuating that they bore responsibility for those murders because they sold bullets. That was when I was done with Michael Moore forever. Even if I agreed with his point (which I don't), that's no excuse to badger someone.

Common sense wins

[horza]

Journalist John Pilger and socialite Jemima Khan are putting up $31,600 surety each, with bail set at $380,000. It looks like enough people like Michael Moore have guaranteed the bail money as he has been bailed pending appeal (the prosecutors have 2 hours to appeal). He should be released by the end of the day.

He has had his passport confiscated, been electronically tagged, is under curfew and house arrest during the evenings, and must report to the police station every day. This is fair enough, it is no different to any other offender afaik. Certainly not the Guantamo Bay scenario he has had the past week, with "absolutely no access to any electronic equipment, no access to the outside world, no access to outside media" and no correspondence allowed.

The fast tracking through political influence, and the imprisonment for an as yet unfounded allegation in a foreign country, is a blot on our country's record, but it's good to see our strong and mostly fair legal system reassert itself after a short delay.

Phillip.

Re:Common sense wins

[horza]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but things have changed. Sweden have now decided they want to appeal against the bail, but have declined to provide any evidence as to any crimes committed. It looks like a vindictive attack is in process to keep him in jail and incommunicado as long as possible. Also the courts aren't taking cheques as they take 7 days to clear, so $380,000 has to be found in used pound notes. Looks like restaurant designer Sarah Saunders, who is putting up $237,000 of bail money, is going to be making a large withdrawal.

In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.

Phillip.

Re:Common sense wins

[Arccot]

In addition to conditions above, curfew from 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am according to the BBC. What a coincidence these are the hours that cover the prime-time news slots.

That part isn't really a concern, since he doesn't have to be in studio to do a live interview. And of course, a taped interview can be recorded anytime.

Re:Alternative headline

[commodore64_love]

I have a better idea:

Let's bring the soldiers home so they can't accidentally kill children, journalists, or innocents. Or get killed themselves. And I don't mean two years from now ('bama's schedule) but immediately. Tomorrow. The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too. We'd save a LOT of lives.

>>>you didn't know that in war civilian sometimes get killed?

Of course. But that doesn't excuse the Pentagon lying about it and pretending war is as clean as a hospital room ("surgical precision to avoid civilian casualties" they claimed). It's good to have these videos exposed to reveal the lie.

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

What the hell is it about Wikileaks that brings out the nutbag libertarians?

Re:Doomed

[zeroshade]

Everyone believes they are in the middle.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[X.25]

..Micheal Moore actually exposes real crimes carried out by all the unpleasent dictatorships around the world. Though that might require him getting off his fat backside and doing some real investigative reporting and even putting himself in real danger , as opposed to the manufacturered danger he conjures up to keep up viewer interesr on his lame expose films.

So, you do not agree that he should try to clean up his own yard first, then go elsewhere?

You'd prefer him to clean Zimbabwe's yard, for example, while ignoring shit that is happening in his own?

Brilliant logic. I wish I had your brain for a week, so I can get a lifetime's rest...

What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this topic. Really, the only things you should say to a police officer are the following:

• Yes, officer.
• No, officer.
• Officer, I'm getting my wallet from my pocket now.
• Officer, I'm getting my registration/insurance documents from the glove compartment.
• I do not consent to any searches.
• Do you have a warrant, officer?
• I will not answer questions without a lawyer.

Re:What to say to police

[JustOK]

COP: Is that your penis in the drive-thru window?

• Yes, officer.

COP: Did someone force you to do that?

No, officer.

COP: Why is your hand in your ass cheeks?

Officer, I'm getting my wallet from my pocket now.

COP: Why are you bending over like that?

Officer, I'm getting my registration/insurance documents from the glove compartment.

COP: I think you lost your mind. Let's look for it.

I do not consent to any searches.

Do you have a warrant, officer?

COP: Did you ask me if I have a warrant?

I will not answer questions without a lawyer.

Re:What to say to police

[bberens]

I would suggest not offering any Yes or Nos. Simply politely provide the officer your license, registration, and potentially car insurance information if asked for it. The only thing you need to say is "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" If the answer to either of those questions is "No." Then your only response after that is that you need your lawyer.

Re:What to say to police

[gknoy]

Great point -- however, if one has a weapon of any variety (even one that might be in plain sight), it's wise to tell the officer that before making any moves that might possibly be construed as reaching for a weapon. Things like, "Officer, I am wearing a pistol on my hip, which is near my seatbelt" or "I have a pistol in my glove compartment" or "I have a hunting knife on my belt", followed by a question about how you can most safely comply with their directions might help their peace of mind (and your safety) a lot.

Re:What to say to police

[nschubach]

Officer: "Were you out drinking tonight?"

You: "Yes, Officer."

Officer: "Please step out of the car."

You: "No, Officer." ... Damn, I messed something up.

Re:What to say to police

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

"There are four lights!"

Re:What to say to police

[johnlcallaway]

Really...so a week or so ago when that police officer pulled me over to tell me my lights weren't on, I should have been far more confrontational instead of having that nice chat we had about how beautiful Pigeon Forge, Tennessee is during their Winter Festival.

It's been my experience that most police officers are nice people that have to deal with the occasional asshole who automatically assumes he is being hassled and wrongfully claims he has never done anything wrong in his entire life, or feels that the police officers should have something better to do than to pull them over for going 15 mph over the speed limit since he can drive safely at that speed.

Well .. the asshole is usually partially correct, police officers do have something better to do than traffic stops. And if said asshole would follow the speed limit or not run red lights or not do illegal lane changes that endanger other people, then the nice police officer could get right to those more important things.

Re:What to say to police

[toQDuj]

I got out of a ticket once, by being polite, but refusing to implicate myself. The officer was asking: "how fast do you think you were going", upon which my answer was: "exactly the speed limit".

Notice that there are always two officers, one asking the questions, and the second recording the response. If you admit you have been speeding, they do not have to prove a thing. If you do not admit it (granted, it has to be around borderline case), the burden of proof is on them.

Being polite helps, though, even in the Netherlands.

Re:Doomed

[Rakshasa Taisab]

How does it aid your international relations?...

Fuck you and your country's international relations.

People in a lot of countries are getting a wakeup call on how the US really views them and their elected (or not elected) leaders, and while it has been 'known' by those in the know... Still to have it exposed to the public in such a manner means it's much harder to try hiding it from the people.

Much of it is just embarrassing and not really 'relevant' stuff, true. Yet being a 'crime' is not really the standard by which we should filter them... Cause in that case even talk of acts of torture would be considered not interesting considering what the US has been up to lately.

Remember; these leaks are not primarily for the American people. They are for the rest of the world.

Ulterior Motive?

[l0ungeb0y]

If Assange goes missing and Moore puts on another 90lbs, I think we can chalk this up as the most expensive Take-Out meal ever

Re:Ulterior Motive?

[EnsilZah]

Surely it's worth it, for only be feasting on his flesh may he gain his powers.

Re:Empty theatrics

[Myopic]

My understanding is he's wanted for some non-standard local law having to do with wearing a condom, and that that "crime" is specifically not rape. Having seen this in at least a couple dozen news articles, you'd have to show me quite a bit of alternative stories saying the charge is RAPE, in order to convince me.

Re:Alternative headline

[gtbritishskull]

Yes, in war civilians get killed. That does not make it OK to lie about how those people died. If it is only a few then the public will probably accept it as acceptable collateral damage. If not, then the public can put pressure on politicians to change how things are progressing. It is a check upon the workings of the government. But, if the government lies about it, then that check is circumvented. If you don't know the truth about what is going on, then how do you judge whether your government is acting in your best interests (as opposed to the best interests of the rich and powerful)?

Re:Empty theatrics

[oh_my_080980980]

Dude the women want him tested for STDs because they had unprotected sex with him. There is no sex crime.

Get a clue.

Re:Doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

The greatest purpose that was served was to show you how fragile or even imaginative your freedom of speech really is. There seems to be a national will to get rid of Wikileaks by any means necessary. Nobody gives a shit he is not even US citizen and that even if he was, he broke no law. He is simply a reporter whom everybody is trying to shut down simply because he is embarrasing them. Sure, not all leaks server greater good per se, but you, USA citizens, really should ask yourselves what values you stand for. Cause it does not seem to be based on your constitution, the way your founding fathers planned.

Re:Alternative headline

[gtbritishskull]

I will give you that Michael Moore is a propagandist. How is Assange one? The only way I have seen him manipulate information is to protect himself against the smear campaign being mounted against him.

Re:Or:

[horza]

First of all what you are saying is not true. He offered the State department the chance to redact the documents, which they declined, then worked in conjunction with respectable papers such as the Guardian and New York Times to publish them.

Secondly, the job of a journalist is to find stories in the public interest and publish them. They aren't all caped crusaders. At least Wikileaks is only publishing information that is anonymously sent to them. In the UK journalists are quite happy to break the law, hack into people's private information, and do whatever it takes to get a story. News of The World in the UK hacked into the voicemail of celebrities, politicians and royal family to get stories (list of victims here).

I would trust Julian Assange to be more apolitical than Michael Moore.

Phillip.

Re:Doomed

[clong83]

Exactly this. For every movie of his I've watched, there has come at least two or three points in the film where I've thought to myself, "Okay, I see your point, but your methods and reasoning are just plain BAD. Furthermore, you've just given everybody who doesn't want to listen the perfect excuse to criticize you and ignore you. WHY?"

Re:In an alternate reality...

[aztektum]

You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.

If you're an idiot, I'd still rather have you following Michael Moore's rhetoric than Glenn Beck's.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I hear this all the time, "He makes some good points but makes them badly." I don't understand this at all. You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work? What is it about his communication style that makes you want to disagree with things you actually agree with?

Are you sure you agree with what he is saying? Maybe you do agree with him, but you really don't want to agree with him? Maybe you don't want a fat hippie liberal slob to be right, because it sets a bad precedent and then other fat hippie liberal slobs might start speaking up? I don't know, I'm just guessing here. Maybe it is because he is a populist, and you are an elitist, and even when populists are correct, elitists have to put them down, to maintain their elite status? Maybe "He makes some good points but makes them badly." is some sort of code for "I really don't want to agree with him, but I have pretensions of intellectual honesty I am loath to give up, and I have to admit that he is telling the truth even though I don't want to."

Re:And you're surprised?

[Myopic]

He sure does. Sigh. I wish the truth were capable of changing the minds of most people, but it isn't. That's too bad, but until individual humans reject nontruths, at least the side of morality and reason has a liar to rely on. Moore is a rare liberal, the kind that would rather convince than tell the truth, and in that he does the world good. I bet you would agree with me that the optimal world would be one in which the truth is more convincing than a lie. Alas, we will have to long for that world, while we settle for this one.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.

Re:All that means is you don't fact check

[copponex]

His version of the Iraq War? That the United States

1) Manufactured intelligence about WMDs
2) Ignored all international inspectors who said there were no WMDs
3) Kicked the inspectors out so they could have their war
4) Lied to the American people about the cost and length of war, with Rumsfeld publicly stating that it won't last "much longer" than 5 months or cost more than 50 to 60 billion dollars
5) Ended up torturing Iraqis in the same prisons where Saddam did his dirty work
6) Pretended that we hadn't supported Saddam right through his worst atrocities in the 80s, including supplying him with "dual use" technology to wage a war with Iran that killed a million people and
7) Removing Iraq from the State sponsors of Terror list in 1982 so US firms could also sell him biological weapons to kill Kurds with

If you were born in Germany in 1920, you would have died wearing a belt buckle that read "GOTT MIT UNS." Blind fealty to the flag is fucking pathetic.

Re:Assange a douchebag, Moore an asshat

[TheSpoom]

People with more extreme views are louder, and their supporters are more dedicated (since they tend to focus on their pet peeve while the rest of us have more important things to do), so we tend to see them more.

They're not the majority though. I'd be willing to bet that most Slashdotters don't hate Moore or Assange... they're just not posting about their moderate stance as much as the extremists are yelling about theirs.

Re:Vigilante nutjobs vs corporate nutjobs

[Enderandrew]

No, standing behind liars doesn't make you a hero and a paragon of truth. It makes you a hypocrite.

If you truly believe in the pursuit of truth, then you need to focus on the truth. I know that is a crazy concept in this partisan society of ours where we want to side with anyone who picks a fight with the other side.

Re:Doomed

[bigstrat2003]

What the hell? I never said the two were equivalent by any means. Your sense of reading comprehension needs work.

Re:Doomed

[Beardo the Bearded]

People can hate both Moore and Palin.

No, you have to choose. You get to pick either Moore, abortion, gun control, gay marriage support; or Palin, destroying terrorists, bailouts and conservative values.

You can't pick and choose a la carte. This isn't a restaurant. This is America.

Re:Or:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

However, Assange is NOT a journalist. Journalists are supposed to have a sense of responsibility. All Assange does is release documents no matter what they are, without apparently trying to determine if they NEED to be leaked.

I don't think you know what the word "journalist" means. A journalist is anyone who reports the news as an occupation. That's it. No other qualification needed.

And journalists who worry about "sense of responsibility" are everywhere -- they're the folks writing bland, instantly forgettable wire service stories; they're the interchangeable talking heads on TV; they're the soothing voices on the radio that you couldn't put names to if your life depended on it. The very few journalists who dig deeper, who know there's always more muck to rake, who have the intelligence and dedication and raw courage to speak truth to power, are the ones whose names are remembered, and rightly so.

Woodward and Bernstein are still household names long after most of their contemporaries have been utterly forgotton. So will Assange be. And while people like you may continue to whine, those of us who want to live in a better world will remember why.

Re:Alternative headline

[Capt_Morgan]

I find it hilarious that Americans say "yes, in war civilians get killed". If those civilians were HERE people wouldn't be so damn cavalier about it. People in Europe are much less likely to support wars because they actually know what the phrase "civilian casualities" really means

Re:What to say to police (what is costs)

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned something recently about this. If you don't talk to the police, they will try to coerce you. Remember, they can hold you for 72 hours without filing charges. So, if you don't talk to them, expect to be arrested, booked, spend 12 hours in holding cells, held in jail with convicted criminals until they finally choose not to file charges against and release you. Bail is so high its impossible for non-celebrities to pay. Even bail bonds cost you 10% and that's a fee. I spent 3 days in jail vs paying $5,000 bail bond (on $50k bail). It was an educational experience. I was exercising my civil rights and for that I was treated like an animal. Hand cuffed, strip searched, DNA scanned. Jail is so dehumanizing.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

You're not fit to judge which laws are valid and which are not unless you're likewise prepared to back that up with full strength of government.

So, yes, that is a double standard. It is the very definition of a double standard to say that China is not permitted to have secrets while we are. That's insane.

And just because the law has details within it does not mean that the secrets being exposed were worth keeping.

I believe in a government without any secrets. Governments aren't people, so they have no rights, including no right to privacy. All this 'treason' stuff is just laziness and deceit.

Re:oh gee

[circletimessquare]

the man engages in ideological arguments that don't guarantee any financial return. he could take the money he earns and lead a much more lucrative life, not doing things like, for example, springing for assange's bail

look: you don't have to like michael moore, but you have to admit that he is a man of conscience, that what motivates him is belief, not greed. to say that someone like michael moore is really just motivated by money, when he clearly is a shining example of a person motivated by ideology, is just a lame weak ignorant smear on your part

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Johnny5000]

You know, Michael Moore may resort to half-truths and tugging at the heart strings, but if you have a brain you can see beyond that while still finding a valid message.

The thing is, there IS a valid message, and he doesn't need to resort to half-truths to get that message across. The message should speak for itself. Embellishments and falsehoods are only going to cloud the validity of that message.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doomed

[spun]

And I think your mother was a llama. What do I base that on? Absolutely nothing, which appears to be the standard of proof you are using.

Moore made his argument. Your rebuttal to his argument is "He lies and uses bad logic." which isn't really any kind of rebuttal or argument at all, it is just an unsupported opinion. Remember, that which can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So, consider yourself and your opinions dismissed until you come back with some evidence.

Re:Alternative headline

[genner]

Michael Moore finds way to stay relevant

Michael Moore was never relevant.

Re:Doomed

[blair1q]

Cars aren't designed to kill. They're designed to prevent people from being killed in a very dangerous situation. When they aren't designed to prevent people from being killed in a very dangerous situation, we punish their designers, builders, and salesmen. What then should we do with a device that is designed specifically and with maximal facility to kill?

It's called Democracy

[mathmathrevolution]

"Michael Moore falls prey to a mistake in ethical reasoning by failing to expound that taxation is immoral as well as the rest of my trite ideological drivel."

Re:Alternative headline

[geekymachoman]

[quote]
The Soviets wisely stopped fighting in Afghanistan when they realized it's hopeless to civilize that mountain country, and we should too. We'd save a LOT of lives.
[/quote]

Offtopic and possibly flame bait, but someones gotta say this.

As someone who had his country 'invaded' by US gov, I gotta say... we don't want you to 'civilize' us. And don't give me that bs crap about terrorism, what, are you so dumbed down that you really think we, less developed countries, suicide bomb or whatever you're country because we're jealous you live so good ? Yeah, right. We don't give a f about you, until you start meddling in our business, which you do because of you're gov own self interests, not because us gov is some kind of peace keepers or whatever propaganda they shove down you're throat so you support this kind of bs.

And regarding this wikileaks stuff, if you, the American people, don't do something about you're government (and no, electing so called 'democrats' won't help) nothing will happen. This will get buried eventually. And for all those deaths and all injustice you're gov did, using you're (taxpayers) money, no one will be judged - "because you aren't waging war, you're CIVILIZING us".

Now, get off my lawn.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Uh, wow. Just... wow. You saw this movie? You saw a movie named "Bowling for Columbine," and you watched the whole thing? Really?

I am reminded of a scene in A Fish Called Wanda and a line that goes "The central theme of Buddhism is NOT 'Every man for himself.'" You think the central theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun control?!? Really?!?

I just have to ask, what about the whole last half of the movie? What about Canada? Micheal discovers that gun control isn't the answer, because guns were never the problem in the first place, and he makes that very clear.

So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you right there and ask you to actually watch one of Micheal Moore's films before you critique him.

Re:Doomed

[locallyunscene]

Calm down foamy. Michael Moore makes it his job to be controversial, it's how he makes money. In that way he's very similar to Glenn Beck. I wonder if you compared a Michael Moore movie to two hours of Glenn Beck's T.V. what the fact/exaggeration/falsehood ratio would be for each.

Ok, well here you go:

[HeckRuler]

-DynCorp, funded by USA taxpayers, bought young male sex slaves for Afghan cops in a "batca bazzi" party. It's a tradition over there apparently.
-They're moving prisoners out of Guantanamo to foreign prisons.
-Under reporting deaths in Afghanistan. It's not going nearly as well as they've said it has.
-Strong-arm tactics regarding the Copenhagen Accord. Spying, bribing, threats, and cutting off millions of dollars to Ecuador and Bolivia. Politics as usual, sure, but it's still corruption.
-Shoving US-style IP laws down Spain's throat.
-Diplomats know that the Saudi Arabians are the primary donors to Al-Queada. Aren't they an ally? Isn't our "strong military presence" in the area supposed to stop that sort of thing?
-The CIA pressured Spain into dropping investigations into the killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops.

That's, you know, our government doing horrible things of various levels. There's a BOATLOAD of details about others doing horrible things. For example:

The Shell Oil Company claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to every movement of politicians. Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

Re:Doomed

[TooMuchToDo]

The law isn't always used for justice. It's also used for revenge and control.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

Do you know what it means when you think "There's something not quite right about that, and I can't put my finger on it?"

It means you aren't thinking. You are feeling. And based on your feelings, you reach a conclusion that you then try to reason backwards from, to find evidence. Don't feel bad, that is exactly what most people are doing when they say they are 'thinking' about something.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

The reason that I want specific examples, rather than a general fucking google search, is that I can rebut specific examples. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your useless contribution to the discussion. Give me some specific examples of Micheal Moore lying so I can prove he isn't, or shut the hell up.

Re:Doomed

[jayme0227]

Yes, because, in a state that has such a large dependence on tourism based around nature, most bullets sold are primarily for the purpose of murder rather than hunting, wildlife management, or target shooting.

In 2009, there were 175 murders in Colorado. In 1981, the year with the greatest number of murders on record, there were 239. These are total counts for murder, they do not delineate gun murders from any other method. In 2008 approximately 41,000 pheasant roosters were harvested. That's just pheasants. I'm not even going to take the time to find out the bag totals of other animals/hunting seasons.

Nobody's "pretending" that the majority of bullets sold are for hunting.

Re:Doomed

[spun]

I've already read and rebutted every single one of those ~900,000 results, I can't be bothered to do it all again. What's more, I have just as much proof that I have done so as you have proof that Moore lies. If you have any new lies about him that need rebutting, please post them. Otherwise, I know that your posts here are just uninformed liberal bashing. You do not provide any criticism, which I would be more than happy to refute. You provide uninformed opinion, which is impossible to refute except with more opinion.

"I think he lies!"

Yeah, well I think he doesn't. And since you are the one making the claim, it is up to you to back it up, otherwise, sensible people everywhere will simply ignore you. And providing a link to "Micheal Moore Lying" is not proof. If it were, then I could provide counterproof simply by linking to a google search for "Micheal Moore telling the truth."

Max Stirner would like a word with you.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

"The state calls its own violence law, and that of the individual crime."

Re:Doomed

[Attila Dimedici]

Here is an example (it is one of many). In Bowling for Columbine, Moore presented "a" speech by Charlton Heston. In the middle of the speech the camera goes from showing Charlton Heston speaking (although you continue to hear him speak) to showing a crowd and signs, then it goes back to showing Charlton Heston. In the meantime Charlton Heston has changed shirts. It turns out that Moore spliced together footage of Charlton Heston at two different speeches to completely different groups so as to make them seem to be one coherent whole and to take some of his comments out of context and make them look like terrible comments about Columbine. When I first heard about the "speech", I thought "Oh, how could he say something like that." Then I heard the context for the parts of each speech, and thought, "OH, he didn't say anything like that. Those two peices don't actually go together."

Except, he never said those things... facts:

[chrb]

This is the same guy who has insinuated that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden and specifically sent too few troops into Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden escaped and wanted to keep his Taliban friends safe.

Do you have a citation for these claims? From what I remember of the movie, the points you refer to are:

• The claim that the Bush family have business contacts and personal friendships with some of the Bin Laden family - the friendships being so close that they affectionately nicknamed one Bin Laden "Bandar Bush". However, there is no claim, at all, that George W. Bush is pals with Osama Bin Laden. Moore does make a point that the Bin Ladens were given special "fly" approval and allowed to leave the country when everyone else in the U.S. was prohibited from flying. Given the personal and financial contacts that the Bin Laden family have had with Osama, Moore suggests that interviewing these people may have been more appropriate.
• The claim that Bush sent too few troops into Tora Bora, despite having intelligence that Osama bin Laden was there. This refers to the incident: "How bin Laden outsmarted Bush in caves of Tora Bora". Despite publically stating that they were certain Osama was in Tora Bora, only a special operations task force of fewer than 30 US soldiers was sent after him, and no attempt was made to close mountain passes with Pakistan. Several thousand U.S. troops from the US Army's Tenth Mountain Division were just across the border in Uzbekistan and ready to be sent in to action, but the order was never given.

The Bush/Bin Laden family and business connection stuff is documented fact. The President's special "fly" approval enabling the Bin Laden's to leave the U.S. immediately after the 9/11 attacks is documented fact. The decision to send fewer than 30 soldiers to pursue Osama, when they knew (or claimed to know) where he was, is documented fact. What is so outrageous about Moore's statements here?

Re:OUR name and tax money?

[RazorSharp]

I'm a nutbag anarcho-capitalist, and I donate to Wikileaks.

And Ron Paul supports Wikileaks as well. Good old Wikileaks, bringing the nutbag socialists (myself) and nutbag libertarians into agreement. But really, why should government transparency be a right-wing/left-wing issue? The ones who paint it as a liberal/conservative issue are just trying to demonize their opponents. A sad effect of the two-party system in the U.S.

Re:In an alternate reality...

[Johnny5000]

Now, given that it doesn't, how do you get the message across?

Well, I don't think that an emotional appeal is necessarily a bad thing, but whenever Michael Moore comes out with a movie, his detractors are able to come up with a huge list of inaccuracies in the films. Some might be honest oversights or maybe an opinion that's open to interpretation, but there are also plenty of blatant falsehoods which call the entire message into question.
That's what I could do without.

However, he's often been described as a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. And what does Rush Limbaugh do? He lies his ass off to support his point, and even when his lies are pointed out to those who listen to him, they will still believe the lies, at least on a visceral level. It will still color their outlook on the world.

So maybe that's what Michael Moore needs to do. Lie his ass off, and poison people's thinking for the greater good? Get them to believe a larger "Truth" by swallowing a few small lies here and there? I don't think I feel entirely comfortable with that, even if it does provide my side with a few more wins.

I think that's a reason why the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world have so much control over the political dialog.

Re:Common mistake in ethical reasoning.

[Johnny5000]

Yes, but in an anarcho-capitalist society you can always opt for a DIY solution.

So say there's a large company that handles private security. A representative of that company comes to your house and demands money. What's to stop them from doing that, and what distinguishes them from a government?

I guess what I'm getting at is- any sufficiently large and powerful group can potentially try to impose their will on you, regardless of the method of social organization, whether it calls itself government or a Mafia family, or say, a future anarcho-capitalist juggernaut Walmart. If you claim a DIY solution would exist against F.A-C.J.W, why is that a different situation than the present-day government? You can choose to align yourself with a better protection racket, but in the end you're only choosing who your master is, and you can pretty much do that now.

Back to present day- if two competing Mafia protection rackets are fighting over your business, you can align with one or the other, or try to DIY defend yourself against both, and they'll squash you.

Re:Doomed

[FoolishOwl]

I've got my own list of criticisms of Moore -- his sloppiness sometimes undermines the causes he supports -- but it's surprising how often he's criticized for claiming things he didn't claim.

This particular criticism is particularly blatant, as you say, given that he spends much of the movie tearing down the conventional explanations for high rates of gun violence in the US, and doesn't come to a definite conclusion, except for the animated sequence that argues that there's a strong historical association in the US between gun violence and racist paranoia.

Re:Doomed

[Magius_AR]

which can cause cognitive dissonance in most people. People do not like the feeling of having their world view invalidated

Or perhaps they're just not fans of cognitive bias?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're a global warming proponent. How'd you feel when ClimateGate came out? Did you feel cognitive dissonance? Was your world view invalidated? Hell no, you got pissed off that a bunch of morons ignored 95% of a document, instead focusing on the 5% that supported their own conclusions. They sensationalized the news and used an appeal to authority (a handful of scientists admitting to falsifying data to support their conclusions) to imply a trend. They generated doubt, uncertainty, and "what-ifs" in the general populace, all based on 100% factual truth. However, the presentation was such that people were led to believe their "evidence" was far stronger and far more closely tied to causal effects than it actually was. Moore is the same way, and I'm sorry you don't see that. You're so quick to dismiss the anti-Moore crowd as "just not 'self-aware' enough to recognize their own bias" that you completely fail to see your own.

Re:Just Leave

[BobMcD]

You clearly have a personal beef against Assange, and I assume that's what's clouding the conversation. In my view, however, the actions themselves can stand alone with or without condom use.

You speak as though Assange hacked the Pentagon, stole the files, and handed them to the enemy. That's not true. He was given the files by a party that wanted them published, with the stated purpose being that the world needed to know. At that point the choice to publish had been made. Everything was already moving in that direction, and to stop it would have been to assist in the evils within the documents.

And while I agree that not every revolutionary is making the right choice, I do fully support their right to make it. They're not sitting here on slashdot arguing from the safety of their homes, those people risked something to try and change the world.