A) No, it is not. At the point that the President himself says "it's classified therefore it's classified", you have a constitutional problem. Until that point there is always someone you can go to who has the authority to order declassification and/or prosecute over it.
B) If nobody at Wikileaks did anything to solicit manning, how did he know to go to Wikileaks instead of the NY Times? Directly soliciting him is hard to prove. The fact that he got the idea from them and gave them the data is proof they solicited it. The NY Times doesn't post requests for classified information. Wikileaks does. That's a big difference in their culpability for the actions of people who steal classified data. Assange has discussed how he coordinates with leakers even before they submit data, probably before they remove it from secure facilities.
C) The potential for publicity is Assange's reason for doing what he does. I have no bias. I am basing my opinion on the facts, and the facts say that Assange is an egotist. Ask his own organization. They've tried to get him to lower his profile or recuse himself, and some have left Wikileaks because of it.
D) Illegal is bad when legal is still a valid course of action. Statements like "zero expectation that proper channels would be effective" is capitulation to the desire to perform an illegal act, encouraged by the prospect of becoming a folk hero. But you're not a hero; you're just too lazy to do things the right way.
In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg had no other recourse. In 2010, the law specifically details that people who improperly classify data are the ones committing a crime and the people who blow the whistle on them in the appropriate manner are to be protected.
So far, there has been no just cause to commit a crime to get any American secrets declassified.
Manning and Assange are not heroes, they are criminals.
The lesson to take from that is: Amazon is underserving your area and you can start your own online sales business and undercut them by providing the same service, only correctly.
No, the problem is that without the excess profits most retailers can't afford the land and utilities they're using.
We all knew when the internet economy started that the online business model was massively more efficient than the bricks-and-mortar model, but the availability of nearly full "online" capability when you're standing right in the bricks-and-mortar unit makes that difference in efficiency even more palpable.
BTW, your restaurant example is moot, here. There's no such thing as an online-restaurant business model. Delivery isn't the same thing, either.
Retail sales jobs are going to be reduced in number, just like lots of other jobs that can be displaced due to online access. The only jobs that will be left will be those that use direct personal service, the laying of hands or eyes on your body or your property (if the property can't be shipped out efficiently).
That is, unless we can get the cost of labor to rise in other countries.
1) Reuters tried, repeatedly to get the video from the military and was denied, repeatedly, because they kept asking the same people and didn't escalate it to the classification authority (which is the President, for all classified info; everone else has delegated and sub-delegated authority).
2) Manning illegally transferred it to unsecured equipment and then handed it to uncleared people who had been soliciting it.
3) Assange made one malformed demand to the Pentagon to declassify it, along with all of the unrelated information that came with it, was denied, failed to escalate to the classification authority, didn't even try to use it to get the delegation EO enforced, saw the publicity potential, and released it.
The FOIA law doesn't say you're allowed to steal what you can't get through FOIA. It doesn't override the classification laws, though when it's followed it can cause the classification laws to be enforced properly. The correct action when the Pentagon fails to do that isn't to steal the information, it's to get the people who denied you the information punished for failing to follow the law. Can the whole thing get byzantine? Yes. But byzantine is a lot better than stealing classified information and releasing it in a way that endangers people who don't deserve to be further endangered.
In other words, the correct defense against a great hypocrisy is not to commit a greater hypocrisy.
Hm. I like that. It should be chiseled in marble above every door to every courtroom.
There are Republicans in the NSA, which means you can never trust that the publicly stated goals of the NSA are the real end-result of every NSA employee's activities.
Proper channels were not followed. Reuters was trying to get the video from the military, and Assange released it. Reminds me of how W went into Iraq before Hans Blix could finish his investigation and eliminate WMD as an excuse.
It's Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning who have broken the law, and are using unsupportable diversions to try to avoid being convicted of it.
The things they say are their goals are good. The things they have done to try to accomplish those goals are not. They need to quit and let reasonable people try to accomplish those goals.
It is possible to get improperly classified documents declassified, by the classification authority, in such a way that properly classified information remains secret.
Not doing it that way is criminal and stupid. It doesn't make the world stronger, it weakens the one country that is most on the side of the sort of world you really want this to be.
The founding fathers were doing the only thing possible to fight the wrongs they were facing.
Manning and Wikileaks are doing everything wrong. If they had bothered to read the law they'd have discovered that the things they wanted declassified would have been, if they'd pointed out that they were improperly classified. But the things in those documents that were properly classified would not be declassified, which is how it should be.
There was no reason for these people to engage in illegal acts other than their own stupidity and ego. Jails are full of their type, and won't be unduly burdened by having two more to feed and wipe up after.
No. If you bring it across the border you are importing it, and the government has total control over that, including taxing it, putting a tariff on it, banning it, quarantining it, impounding it, or declaring it a felony and locking you up for it.
The solution to this is to end borders. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that's a bad idea, either. The border between Missouri and Illinois is more real than the border between the U.S. and Canada. Yet the border between San Diego and Tijuana is wider than the border between Cupertino and Shenzen. The control seems arbitrary, and creates artificial boundary conditions that result in instability and turbulence.
The irony there is that they had actually decided no such thing, but a clerk was allowed to decide whether to add a note to the opinion that they hadn't decided it because the justices all believed that it was so. If he hadn't added that note, the decision would never have mentioned it, and it would have been left to later cases to decide it.
In reality, since it's not part of the decision, courts should actually now be deciding it all over again, but the Supreme Court, being answerable to nobody and at liberty to interpret the words in the Constitution as it pleases, seems to like it the way it is. At least, the 5 of them anointed by Republican Presidents do.
Not American ones. Not American ones in Iraq. Iraqi ones. Contrary to what you might believe, the President of the United States is not the President of Iraq.
As for who deserves it, I think you do, just for being this dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
A) No, it is not. At the point that the President himself says "it's classified therefore it's classified", you have a constitutional problem. Until that point there is always someone you can go to who has the authority to order declassification and/or prosecute over it.
B) If nobody at Wikileaks did anything to solicit manning, how did he know to go to Wikileaks instead of the NY Times? Directly soliciting him is hard to prove. The fact that he got the idea from them and gave them the data is proof they solicited it. The NY Times doesn't post requests for classified information. Wikileaks does. That's a big difference in their culpability for the actions of people who steal classified data. Assange has discussed how he coordinates with leakers even before they submit data, probably before they remove it from secure facilities.
C) The potential for publicity is Assange's reason for doing what he does. I have no bias. I am basing my opinion on the facts, and the facts say that Assange is an egotist. Ask his own organization. They've tried to get him to lower his profile or recuse himself, and some have left Wikileaks because of it.
D) Illegal is bad when legal is still a valid course of action. Statements like "zero expectation that proper channels would be effective" is capitulation to the desire to perform an illegal act, encouraged by the prospect of becoming a folk hero. But you're not a hero; you're just too lazy to do things the right way.
In 1971 Daniel Ellsberg had no other recourse. In 2010, the law specifically details that people who improperly classify data are the ones committing a crime and the people who blow the whistle on them in the appropriate manner are to be protected.
So far, there has been no just cause to commit a crime to get any American secrets declassified.
Manning and Assange are not heroes, they are criminals.
The lesson to take from that is: Amazon is underserving your area and you can start your own online sales business and undercut them by providing the same service, only correctly.
Look up Greg Mankiw. His theories of consumer inefficiency got him the top economist job in the Bush43 white house.
If you document that and report it to your DA or AG, the store will be dealt with legally.
Cool. I'll just leave the cell-phone outside. Along with the pocket it's in, and the ass those pants are on.
No, the problem is that without the excess profits most retailers can't afford the land and utilities they're using.
We all knew when the internet economy started that the online business model was massively more efficient than the bricks-and-mortar model, but the availability of nearly full "online" capability when you're standing right in the bricks-and-mortar unit makes that difference in efficiency even more palpable.
BTW, your restaurant example is moot, here. There's no such thing as an online-restaurant business model. Delivery isn't the same thing, either.
Retail sales jobs are going to be reduced in number, just like lots of other jobs that can be displaced due to online access. The only jobs that will be left will be those that use direct personal service, the laying of hands or eyes on your body or your property (if the property can't be shipped out efficiently).
That is, unless we can get the cost of labor to rise in other countries.
Don't change the subject.
I wasn't. I was using a simile. Pay attention.
The proper order is:
1) Reuters tried, repeatedly to get the video from the military and was denied, repeatedly, because they kept asking the same people and didn't escalate it to the classification authority (which is the President, for all classified info; everone else has delegated and sub-delegated authority).
2) Manning illegally transferred it to unsecured equipment and then handed it to uncleared people who had been soliciting it.
3) Assange made one malformed demand to the Pentagon to declassify it, along with all of the unrelated information that came with it, was denied, failed to escalate to the classification authority, didn't even try to use it to get the delegation EO enforced, saw the publicity potential, and released it.
The FOIA law doesn't say you're allowed to steal what you can't get through FOIA. It doesn't override the classification laws, though when it's followed it can cause the classification laws to be enforced properly. The correct action when the Pentagon fails to do that isn't to steal the information, it's to get the people who denied you the information punished for failing to follow the law. Can the whole thing get byzantine? Yes. But byzantine is a lot better than stealing classified information and releasing it in a way that endangers people who don't deserve to be further endangered.
In other words, the correct defense against a great hypocrisy is not to commit a greater hypocrisy.
Hm. I like that. It should be chiseled in marble above every door to every courtroom.
First rule of security: never do anything anyone wants to know about.
Yes, but even the trustworthy people can't trust the network, so it's the network itself that is compromised.
Untrustworthy people can do untrustworthy things on a non-compromised network.
Though a compromised network may be compromised in a way that helps them hide their untrustworthy acts.
There are Republicans in the NSA, which means you can never trust that the publicly stated goals of the NSA are the real end-result of every NSA employee's activities.
Yes.
The smiley was ambiguous. I'm always paying attention.
So you know nothing, don't trust anyone who does, and haven't paid attention to history.
In other words, you're the dumb fuck.
Proper channels were not followed. Reuters was trying to get the video from the military, and Assange released it. Reminds me of how W went into Iraq before Hans Blix could finish his investigation and eliminate WMD as an excuse.
You're projecting.
It's Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning who have broken the law, and are using unsupportable diversions to try to avoid being convicted of it.
The things they say are their goals are good. The things they have done to try to accomplish those goals are not. They need to quit and let reasonable people try to accomplish those goals.
P.S. You're not being reasonable here.
>The least fascist person I've ever encountered does not think he knows best about what others are allowed to hear and say.
Not possible. People who don't know what secrets to keep go extinct.
You are wrong.
It is possible to get improperly classified documents declassified, by the classification authority, in such a way that properly classified information remains secret.
Not doing it that way is criminal and stupid. It doesn't make the world stronger, it weakens the one country that is most on the side of the sort of world you really want this to be.
The founding fathers were doing the only thing possible to fight the wrongs they were facing.
Manning and Wikileaks are doing everything wrong. If they had bothered to read the law they'd have discovered that the things they wanted declassified would have been, if they'd pointed out that they were improperly classified. But the things in those documents that were properly classified would not be declassified, which is how it should be.
There was no reason for these people to engage in illegal acts other than their own stupidity and ego. Jails are full of their type, and won't be unduly burdened by having two more to feed and wipe up after.
You are a crook. Figure that out and you'll understand why people treat you like one.
When the topic is watches, the value of the brand is often much greater than the value of the object it's applied to.
Someone willing to shell out $5k for an Omega Speedmaster isn't going to be satisfied with a $35 Timex keeps better time and may even look cooler.
That excess value is what the copyright protects, and it's a valid use of it.
No. If you bring it across the border you are importing it, and the government has total control over that, including taxing it, putting a tariff on it, banning it, quarantining it, impounding it, or declaring it a felony and locking you up for it.
The solution to this is to end borders. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that's a bad idea, either. The border between Missouri and Illinois is more real than the border between the U.S. and Canada. Yet the border between San Diego and Tijuana is wider than the border between Cupertino and Shenzen. The control seems arbitrary, and creates artificial boundary conditions that result in instability and turbulence.
The irony there is that they had actually decided no such thing, but a clerk was allowed to decide whether to add a note to the opinion that they hadn't decided it because the justices all believed that it was so. If he hadn't added that note, the decision would never have mentioned it, and it would have been left to later cases to decide it.
In reality, since it's not part of the decision, courts should actually now be deciding it all over again, but the Supreme Court, being answerable to nobody and at liberty to interpret the words in the Constitution as it pleases, seems to like it the way it is. At least, the 5 of them anointed by Republican Presidents do.
You're laughing at your own imagination.
"Iraqi police stations, Army bases, and prisons."
Not American ones. Not American ones in Iraq. Iraqi ones. Contrary to what you might believe, the President of the United States is not the President of Iraq.
As for who deserves it, I think you do, just for being this dumb.
Seriously? Someone is using him as a poster boy for a campaign against the paradox of pretrial incarceration in a free society?
That legal ship sailed a long time ago.
He's been charged. A judge has ordered him held. The law is being satisfied, as are his rights to due process.
He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.
Fer fuck's sake, people with tiny minds have lost what little they had over this junk.