Good editorial; I especially like this paragraph:"There’s another irony here, too. The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones."
She's "Secretary of State," not "foreign-minister." Which means, in the US, she also heads the CIA. And there is a difference between spying on ambassadors to the UN and infringing on US property, which is what the charter provision you quote there prohibits.
At least when I saw here speak, she just said it like she saw it. There was no say one thing and do another.
What did you think about that weird pseudo-Wisconsin accent she affected? Doesn't that accent (which cropped up only after she made the national stage) kind of point to a deep, underlying dishonesty?
No, because then it's a statement made in a legal proceeding and thus protected. Otherwise 99% of lawsuits would be followed up with libel/slander lawsuits.
Which is why you make shorter, broader accusations, then refine them later with an amended complaint. That's why initial complaints tend to be broadly worded, and later ones more tightly refined.
This is definitely whistle-blowing stuff. It is an eye-opener.
Yes, I was actually impressed by how professional the US state department has become, and how pragmatic. Thanks to wikileaks I actually trust them a little bit more now.
Yes he does. Like when he started making demands that Clinton step down for daring (gasp) to have her diplomats gather intelligence. Also, just as a side point he came off sounding like an idiot when he did that.
Re:I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info
on
Torrent Users Fight Back
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I would not get too optimistic; Courts frequently don't like shotgun pleadings and this complaint certainly qualifies. And some of the claims seem a little dubious.
You have qualified immunity for statements made in legal proceedings (or in actions leading up to possible legal proceedings) such as demand letters. Furthermore, in order to slander/libel someone you need to make the statement in the presence of another person. If I send you a letter saying you're an idiot, that's not libel unless I show the letter to other people.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the fact in general that THESE cables were released, I was just pointing out the idea that a diplomat should expect whatever he tells another diplomat to be released to all 6 billion people on earth is an inane idea.
American Exceptionalism is the sadly more and more common belief that America, by its very nature, can do no wrong. It is Manifest Destiny written on a global scale.
Yet America is still one of the few countries willing to honestly face its past and try to redress things it's done wrong. If you think America is overly nationalistic what do you think about China? Russia?
Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.
You're completely missing the point. When one diplomat tells another something, the expectation all around is that it will get written down and passed to the recipient's superiors. It is NOT expected that it will fall into the hands of someone like Assange who will release it to the world.
What I don't understand is how Apple has standing to sue; Jobs should do his dirty work himself, and if I was an Apple shareholder I'd be annoyed Jobs was using the company resources for his own personal purposes.
You can hire anyone you want to testify or be your administrative assistant. They can't act in the courtroom as a lawyer or associate, but they can hand you notes on what to do/say if needed.
Your other points are valid but this one I don't think would work; telling you what you should say in court is generally considered giving legal advice.
There's something the article isn't saying; I don't know what it is but there's no way even a semi-competent lawyer would demand legal fees just on the basis of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Good editorial; I especially like this paragraph:"There’s another irony here, too. The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones."
Diplomats have been used to gather intelligence since diplomats first arose. It is engrained into the role of diplomat.
She's "Secretary of State," not "foreign-minister." Which means, in the US, she also heads the CIA. And there is a difference between spying on ambassadors to the UN and infringing on US property, which is what the charter provision you quote there prohibits.
At least when I saw here speak, she just said it like she saw it. There was no say one thing and do another.
What did you think about that weird pseudo-Wisconsin accent she affected? Doesn't that accent (which cropped up only after she made the national stage) kind of point to a deep, underlying dishonesty?
No, because then it's a statement made in a legal proceeding and thus protected. Otherwise 99% of lawsuits would be followed up with libel/slander lawsuits.
Which is why you make shorter, broader accusations, then refine them later with an amended complaint. That's why initial complaints tend to be broadly worded, and later ones more tightly refined.
This is definitely whistle-blowing stuff. It is an eye-opener.
Yes, I was actually impressed by how professional the US state department has become, and how pragmatic. Thanks to wikileaks I actually trust them a little bit more now.
Yes he does. Like when he started making demands that Clinton step down for daring (gasp) to have her diplomats gather intelligence. Also, just as a side point he came off sounding like an idiot when he did that.
I would not get too optimistic; Courts frequently don't like shotgun pleadings and this complaint certainly qualifies. And some of the claims seem a little dubious.
You have qualified immunity for statements made in legal proceedings (or in actions leading up to possible legal proceedings) such as demand letters. Furthermore, in order to slander/libel someone you need to make the statement in the presence of another person. If I send you a letter saying you're an idiot, that's not libel unless I show the letter to other people.
Speaking as a mostly-leftist American, I would like nothing better than seeing Palin win the Republican nomination.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the fact in general that THESE cables were released, I was just pointing out the idea that a diplomat should expect whatever he tells another diplomat to be released to all 6 billion people on earth is an inane idea.
Have reparations for violations of treaties with the Native nations gone through while I wasn't looking?
You're kidding, right? You don't think the US doesn't give native americans reparations?
Below their level? Rape is worse than almost all the crimes you list there.
American Exceptionalism is the sadly more and more common belief that America, by its very nature, can do no wrong. It is Manifest Destiny written on a global scale.
Yet America is still one of the few countries willing to honestly face its past and try to redress things it's done wrong. If you think America is overly nationalistic what do you think about China? Russia?
Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.
You're completely missing the point. When one diplomat tells another something, the expectation all around is that it will get written down and passed to the recipient's superiors. It is NOT expected that it will fall into the hands of someone like Assange who will release it to the world.
Ahhh, alright that makes more sense. Still idiotic for them to sue.
Were you also criticizing most of the slashdot stories on Assange which have been overtly biased in favor of Assange?
What I don't understand is how Apple has standing to sue; Jobs should do his dirty work himself, and if I was an Apple shareholder I'd be annoyed Jobs was using the company resources for his own personal purposes.
What exactly do you think the Court did here?
You can hire anyone you want to testify or be your administrative assistant. They can't act in the courtroom as a lawyer or associate, but they can hand you notes on what to do/say if needed.
Your other points are valid but this one I don't think would work; telling you what you should say in court is generally considered giving legal advice.
There's something the article isn't saying; I don't know what it is but there's no way even a semi-competent lawyer would demand legal fees just on the basis of this.
that I lived in the US, but have you completely lost your minds ? Have you become so paranoid that kids with pencils are a threat ?
Uhhhh....right. You are correctly judging a nation of 300 million people by the actions of two.
A good example of this is the fight the teachers union is going through now to avoid performance-based merit increases.
Only they're not, several teachers unions have gotten on board with performance-based merit increases.
You know, the kind the rest of us get for our work.
You've never worked in the private sector, have you...I mean that's just hilarious.
Did murder STOP? No. I didn't attempt to compare rates.
Yes you did. You stated that weapons control laws never "decreased" violence, not "stop[ped" violence.