You should note that the laws against releasing classified material as center around knowing and approval. If you unknowingly, or with approval, release it, you are not punished. It you knowingly and intentionally, without approval, release it, you have broken the law to some extent.
While you are right that information does escape all the time, I can't for the life of me fathom how wikileaks can claiming not to have known or had approval. It's two separate situations.
The library of congress exception to the DMCA clause only allows personal use. It otherwise does not exist. It's pretty clear that his attemps were for commercial use so the exception does not apply.
You have to remember, it's illegal to tamper with devices designed to lock down and protect copyright. The law allows for some exceptions to this illegality to be made. In this case, the exception was made for consumers taking their existing phone to another network. While this exception can be construed to be extended to you buying a phone and automatically moving it to another network, I don't see any language that allows a proprietor or anyone to purchase phones for resale within the bounds of this exception.
Now don't take this as my endorsement of the law, I find all sorts of fault with it. But the law still stands with the exceptions in place and if you do not follow those rules, you would/might be in violation of it.
The underacted leaks will just give the officials more power to assassinate. Except this time, they are hunting down spies and terrorist and idiot giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I believe those were called enemy combatants when Bush was president.
I don't know if Russia will kill him. He might be making himself hard to find.
Of course he is making himself hard to find, there is an international warrant out for his arrest.
Actually it was both and both of what you say apply within their own context.
Once a consumer purchases the phone, they are able to break the encryption and move it to any network. But when the op was buying them in bulk with the intention to resell as new, he wasn't the owner as far as the law/rule allowing the DMCA jailbreak, His use was commercial in nature which was outside the exception rule.
Your fallacy is that it is money taken away from you and that this money is then gone poof. It's not. It is spent on something you and I use together. Just that the "rich" has to pay more for the same service.
There is no fallacy at all. Well, unless you are intentionally missing one of the most important point in my post, Not all government services are wanted, needed, or available to everyone. The money is gone as it is taken from us and used for unnecessary things. The point is, that not everyone agrees on what is needed or even wanted so it is a loss to them when it's taken and spent on something not needed or wanted.
Let's imagine I earn 1000 and you earn 100. At 10 percent tax, I'd have to pay 100 and you'd have to pay 10. Let's now say that a policeman costs conveniently 110. So the two of us together could "buy" one policeman with our tax. Now, this policeman is in no way more "mine" than it's yours. Even though we don't pay 55 each, I pay a whooping 100 and you only 10! I sponsor your policeman.
I don't think anyone has claimed that government services is more of someone's then another'. Either way the point I was making is that it's not just the policeman, it's the "well, here is your policeman, now you have to hire a baker, a street sweeper, someone to run the shoulders of secretaries doing transcriptions, build a park, and so on". Lets say all this extra now makes our tax burden 35%. You now need to pay $350 while I pay $35. You are still sponsoring my policeman, plus all the stuff I don't want.
Ok, you may now argue that you don't really get a lot out of a cop. How about this: With higher tax, we could make the school books for your kids free. 5% more tax and we get free books. What does that mean? Now, the books cost 25 per child. I pay 50 tax more, you pay 5 more. Both, your and my kid, will get their books now. Only that I had to pay 50 for them and you got them for a fiver.
Well, I don't have a kid so now I'm sponsoring your kids education.
You see, again you missed my earlier point completely. You seem to be arguing about necessary expenses and services that we can agree on. The problem is that there are a ton of unnecessary expense and services that we cannot agree is necessary. But yet you seem to ignore that and say I should want the government to take more of my less because of a percentage difference. Well, they shouldn't be taking to cover some of that stuff to begin with, my taxes should just be lower.
Does that show how higher tax benefits the lower incomes? Yes, you have less money in your pocket. But this money is spent again. It may be news for you, but the guy at the treasury doesn't just eat your taxes. He spends it. And the higher the income, the higher the tax and the higher the share they have to pay.
What happens when government takes more taxes in then they have in expenses? Outside of a small rainy day accumulation, they all (at least in the US) have to spend it or give it back. Guess what they do most of the time, they spend it, this creates a fiscal liability which means they will need to raise taxes if they want or need to do something else. SO now we have all these unnecessary costs and programs or services that no matter how they are construed, only benefit a certain few citizens. Should the government still tax you more?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't care if you are paying 100 times more for something and sponsoring me in it, if it something that I don't want, need, or think should be part of the government's duties. If we are overspending on crap that isn't necessary, then that spending should stop and the taxes should be lowered to reflect it.
Here, try this mental exercise. Suppose you and I had our hypothetical roles reverses. I make the $1000 and you make the $100. Now suppose I offered to take you out to eat if you paid
I run AVG but not the default versions. Well, it's the same except I disable the link scanning, tool bars, and id protection crap and it seems to be smooth and light.
I was born, just not old enough to pay much attention. Ford was president when I started knowing about the little things like economy, foreign policy and so on. Carter was president when I started paying attention to it because it all the sudden started to suck.
Personally, I think it's funny how every American (ok, it's not limited to the US, I gotta admit it, it's different here at all) always cheers when he hears "tax cut". Hello? Do you earn 200k a year? No? Then a tax cut is the LAST thing you want! And if it's less than 50k, you should start demanding higher taxes. Much higher.
I simply do not understand this logic. If I earn less, I should want the government to take more of my pay. And if I earn a lot less, they should take a lot more?
What is tax? Tax ain't just money the country steals from you. It may surprise a lot of people, but the treasury head does not just take the money and eat it. Tax money is spent on "government stuff". Stuff that you want, need and like. Where do these people think how things like police, army, social security, communal buildings, administration and so on are funded and staffed? By some magical government man who prints more money when he needs it?
The problem is that not everyone thinks all the government stuff is needed- all the time. Obviously you need some support network for indigent people who need a hand up and not a hand out. You need police and fire and roads and a few other services, but not all of them and not to the levels they are at or some want them to be.
Here is an example, In my former home town, they claimed they needed to pass a tax to repair the roads as the economic down turn was depleting their coffers. It went on the ballot, was passed last year during a may election session, and what construction project did they spend the extra tax on? A fucking scenic bike path on some abandoned rail road right of way that the city purchased with the bulk of the previous years road fund. And this bike path doesn't even go near the current commercial zoned property which is a large reason why it was abandoned in the first place. I hope you aren't trying to say that I should ask the government to take more because I earn less when they are doing crap like this are you?
We don't need to lower taxes. We need to pay taxes. Just imagine what we could afford if everyone just paid his taxes, especially if he earns enough to make it count!
My god, you're right, we could build useless bike paths all over the world. Almost everyone see unneeded service in the government that they don't want to pay for. We need lower taxes because (at least in America) it seems like if the government has enough to cover what it spends, they will only spend more, even if they know they won't be able to cover it. It's a never ending story, the more you give them, the more they take, the more they take, the more different people want because they no longer have, to the more they spend. Rinse, Repeat, and tell me what a circular argument is.
You know what, you are right that this is a dangerous line of argument. And it's a line that already has been made by other countries in the middle east. Just look at the released diplomat cables.
Anyways, there is a strong difference between the threat of Iraq and Iran. Historically Iraq has been a defender not an aggressor in conflicts. They do more talking then action outside of supplying a few terrorist groups with funding that they then spend on conventional weapons. Iraq on the other hand has invaded two counties since 1970, they had used WMDs on both, the enemy forces and it's own citizens when the ruler felt threatened, and Iraq has been in armed conflict with the US within the previous 2 decades.
So obviously, there is a lot more to that line of reasoning as in the motivations behind the reasoning. I do not intend to demonstrate that as an absolute in reasoning, just a logical path to conclude with given the unique circumstances.
Really? Because Gore thought he owned a significant share of Occidental oil and declared that personally on his investment statements filed with the various government ethics entities. Gore actually benefited from oil prices increasing.
you are forgetting the pentagon memos about "full spectrum dominance" from that era: dominating all petroleum resources, such as invading iraq. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, it was completely fabricated bullshit
I'm sorry but if you think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or if you think that is the reason we invaded Iraq, you are a moron. It's actually the inverse where 9/11 had something to do with Iraq. Do not confuse the two as they are not the same. After 9/11, the threat that Iraq was became increasingly larger due to the actions of 9/11. It's because of 9/11 that George Bush wouldn't tolerate Iraq's non-compliance and hostile actions toward the US.
i could be diplomatic about it, but i was never good at that: you are a complete moron if you think gore would have invaded iraq. afghanistan yes, but not iraq. that's a special bush-oil industry scheme
I can understand why your not diplomatic, you still havn't master the shift key or punctuation yet. But hey, it's a learning process, it just takes a little longer for some I guess. It might even take you longer to understand history and the stated reasons for doing things like invading Iraq. Gore most likely would have invaded Iraq given the same circumstances if not upon further developments due to the lack of action.
You should probably refrain from calling other people a moron when you can't quite reach that level.
We don't know that either way yet do we? All we know is that he has been charged and locked up, so while it's fair to assume he did it we've heard nothing about why apart from speculation.
We know he had represented that to be the case in chat's with Lamo in which he admitted to being behind the leaks. These Chat logs are also what got him arrested.
Thus you are making shit up to pretend you don't have an attitude that all declared enemies of the empire must die. You've fallen into the trap of thinking it's a perfect state that should never be questioned while pretending to be the exact opposite.
How can I be making stuff up that is public knowledge if you just look for it. I think maybe you have fallen into the trap of allowing your concerns to develop into allusions and now your suffering from the lack of the ability to discern reality from what you want it to be.
Also why should this guy die when the idiots that tried to sell secrets to the USSR (that got disgruntled after learning of a botched and pointless CIA operation to interfere with the Australian government) were merely locked up.
IF anything at all, it's because he succedded in releasing the information while the others didn't. But hey, your question incorrectly assumes that I don't think those guys should have gotten the capitol punishment. This is not the case at all.
Why do you think we need this guy dead?
I already stated that but I guess I could expand a bit. It's because he defrauded the government (we the people) in keeping his position when failing to follow the rules of classified information and did so not in some attempt at right a serious wrong, but in exposing and harming the country (again, we the people as in me and you personally).
Oliver North didn't get executed for selling US weapons to Iran and embezzling a bit on the side and Poindexter even got other jobs in government.
You do realize that North and Poindexter have had their conviction overturned. They were railroaded from the start. I'm not advocating that we short circuit the legal process and not allow manning to defend himself or his action, but if he is found guilty and doesn't win on appeal, he needs to die.
Also, Iran Contra was only illegal because the beal amendment was being stretched beyond it's original intent to apply to a scam that was specifically designed to sidestep it. In other words, there was some unethical things done which was against the expressed intent of congress, but nothing in Iran Contra was illegal and the administration had the constitutional power to do what was done.
Why is leaking very low level secrets worth a far more extreme penalty than arming our declared enemies at the same time we had ships in peril from Iranian attack?
The president is the head of state. He determines who our friends and enemies are unless congress has declared war on them. The executive can make this determination independent of congress. What you are complaining about is the limits of congress that they couldn't control the administration when they tried. That is dangerous because it stops the branches of government from being separate.
you need to actually think about this stuff instead of thinking press secretaries attached to government are infallible.
Perhaps it is you who needs to think about this stuff a little more. And before you do that, try to keep and unbiased and open mind, then consider the effect and intent in an unbiased way. I think if you do this, you will see that anything done to violate the confidence presented to you and your government that you accepted willingly only to betray with an express intent of harming your government deserves the strongest punishment possible.
I wouldn't mind the leaking as much if it weren't for the bragging and self promotion. If the leaks were to actually expose wrongs by the government and non governmental organizations, then it's acceptable as the motives are genuine. But when it's primarily to promote your agenda or further your own fame or something in between, then it's little more then breaking the law for your own interest and it's no better then being a common criminal.
And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years until he finally broke into one and found a 9 year old girl tied up and reported it to the police. The fact that he may have saved some kid from horrendous treatment does not excuse the fact that he is/was a thief. While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl, I am saying that the positive outcome doesn't excuse the motivation because it wasn't to help, but to hurt in the first place.
You don't know that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. He has championed military action on Iraq in the past as well as spoke about the need to remove Saddam from power.
He very well could have invaded Iraq. What I think would have transpired would have gone something more like this. Iraq would have started it's saber rattling again, Gore would have ordered a stategic strike on an aspirin factory in Iraq- killing a janitor, Saddam would have retaliated by giving some of it's old WMDs to terrorist who would have used them on western targets, Gore would have invaded.
And BTW, the was the logic behind Bush's neccesity for the invasion of Iraq. I know people want to concentrate on WMDs and the connection to Al Qaeda that both seemed to be missing, but we couldn't verify it's absence and Bush sides on the side that protected us.
Yea, I don't know why people idolize Carter as the president he was. They must be clueless idiots who didn't bother checking into something they weren't around to experience.
Don't get me wrong, Carter is a great human being outside of his term as president and he had a lot going against him going in. But he simply was the worst president I can remember in my lifetime.
I mean seriously, do you really think people are educated and intelligent if they want to flee a country instead of fix it's problems and make it better? Do you really think people who claim to be educated and intelligent, actually are if they can't beat some idiot in an election?
I mean hell, if they are so much smarter, so much more intelligent, then why are they losing? I find it funny that every wants to claim Bush was the dumbest president in the history of the US, but at the same time, he was crafting some conspiracy to screw everything over. It seems like most people should be kicking themselves in the head for having such a conspiracy orchestrated on them by someone as stupid as Bush is made out to be. And here it's already getting warmed up to accept another failure when Palin gets elected.
I'm not really sure that educated and intelligent actually means what you think it means.
You know, you complain about 8 years of Bush but do not consider the alternative at all. Was 8 years of bush better then 8 years of Gore, most likely, was 8 years of bush better then 4-8 years of Kerry, most likely.
Is 4 years of Palin better then 8 years of obama, it seems to look like it.
Don't think everyone supports a idiots and jackasses when idiots and jackasses are all we get to choose from. I can't stand McCain and ended up voting for him over obamma.
What if you actually believe that Palin could be no worse then the current and last administration no matter how ignorant you think she is and just welcome someone who is straightforward. At least when I saw here speak, she just said it like she saw it. There was no say one thing and do another.
Also, since so many people had access THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING INCLUDED IN THERE THAT PUTS A GOVERNMENT IN JEOPARDY otherwise it's a failure on the part of whoever is sharing sensitive information with so many people.
Failure of a woman to dress in a way that makes sure no one would get sexually excited does not in any way mean she is responsible for any rape or sexual assault that may happen. You are right, it is a failure, but the failure does not infer or imply any justification or right of action to Manning.
So far there's not even anything that will catch somebody taking bribes so it has not even endangered any criminals, so that renders your "jeopary" bit as complete or utter bullshit.
Really? You think that? giving out information that has the potential and actually did inflame tensions between interested parties didn't harm the US in any way? When I say jeopardy, I do not mean someone in the government is at risk, I mean out entire operations around the world and the interests of the US whether you agree with them or not.
Now why the fuck do you want this guy dead? I'm guessing it's because he went up against the holy fucking unqestionable edifice of government and didn't do what he's told so I'm throwing it back in your face that you are showing the Royalist attitude (unquestionable divine right of Kings) Washington rebelled against and calling it Libertarianism.
I don't want him dead, I want him punished to the most extreme extent possible which happens to be the death penalty. And I want him punished not because he went up against the government, but because he took a job, swore and oath to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic, sought after and received clearance for classified information to some level, then forgot all that and attempted to damage and destroy the efforts of the same country by releasing the information he did after he was disciplined for actions of his own making.
This isn't some valiant warrior attempting to fight the evils he sees around him. He was a disgruntled employee who was trying to strike back at his employer which in this case ended up being the US government. He could have quit in protest, he could have notified several separate entities including the courts, federal prosecutors, congress, local and state entities, and media outlets of specific accusations or wrong doing instead of blindly releasing all sorts of information with the intent to damage the US.
You can go work for some company if you want to do that. If you are trying to damage the country, you can go to hell and I'm more then willing to help. And by you, I don't mean you specifically, I mean you as in anyone taking that action.
Nah, wikileaks only seems interested in harming the US government and the US economy.. That would seem to be beneath them as it could potentially help.
How do you know a trojan wasn't slipped into the various software source hosted by the Savannah server like GCC, the GNU utilities etc.?
Didn't you read the part in the article summery where they said that have restored everything from known good backups?
How you know is by a hash file. You hash the files, store copies of the hash on systems other then the one the file it on, then you compare the hash of the current file with the known good file. If they match, they are good. If they don't, they aren't good.
No, but you would complain if the people responsible for ensuring the safety of the car run red lights themselves and put others at risk. That's what happened here. The hardcore admins themselves didn't follow basic security procedures like hashing passwords and protecting against injection attacks.
True, but not all is lost as you seem to make it out to be.
I know you are just trolling, but even cursory glance at the article summery would tell you that this wasn't a linux problem, it was an exploit to a service running on the linux. Linux doesn't Nativity process SQL code until some SQL server service is installed and running. I know it's difficult to understand that an SQL server is different from an operating system when your a windows point and click jockey but you can look it up if you need to learn more about it.
Getting a job? Hell this explains why he couldn't get a date over the last couple of years. Didn't you know that women google you now before going on dates to see if you are some looser or something embarrassing might pop up and shame them in front of their girlfriends?
I had one girl shoot me down because she could fine 20 to 30 others with the same name as mine but not me on a google search. She claimed I was using an alias.
Slashdot Mirror
You should note that the laws against releasing classified material as center around knowing and approval. If you unknowingly, or with approval, release it, you are not punished. It you knowingly and intentionally, without approval, release it, you have broken the law to some extent.
While you are right that information does escape all the time, I can't for the life of me fathom how wikileaks can claiming not to have known or had approval. It's two separate situations.
The library of congress exception to the DMCA clause only allows personal use. It otherwise does not exist. It's pretty clear that his attemps were for commercial use so the exception does not apply.
You have to remember, it's illegal to tamper with devices designed to lock down and protect copyright. The law allows for some exceptions to this illegality to be made. In this case, the exception was made for consumers taking their existing phone to another network. While this exception can be construed to be extended to you buying a phone and automatically moving it to another network, I don't see any language that allows a proprietor or anyone to purchase phones for resale within the bounds of this exception.
Now don't take this as my endorsement of the law, I find all sorts of fault with it. But the law still stands with the exceptions in place and if you do not follow those rules, you would/might be in violation of it.
The underacted leaks will just give the officials more power to assassinate. Except this time, they are hunting down spies and terrorist and idiot giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I believe those were called enemy combatants when Bush was president.
Of course he is making himself hard to find, there is an international warrant out for his arrest.
Actually it was both and both of what you say apply within their own context.
Once a consumer purchases the phone, they are able to break the encryption and move it to any network. But when the op was buying them in bulk with the intention to resell as new, he wasn't the owner as far as the law/rule allowing the DMCA jailbreak, His use was commercial in nature which was outside the exception rule.
There is no fallacy at all. Well, unless you are intentionally missing one of the most important point in my post, Not all government services are wanted, needed, or available to everyone. The money is gone as it is taken from us and used for unnecessary things. The point is, that not everyone agrees on what is needed or even wanted so it is a loss to them when it's taken and spent on something not needed or wanted.
I don't think anyone has claimed that government services is more of someone's then another'. Either way the point I was making is that it's not just the policeman, it's the "well, here is your policeman, now you have to hire a baker, a street sweeper, someone to run the shoulders of secretaries doing transcriptions, build a park, and so on". Lets say all this extra now makes our tax burden 35%. You now need to pay $350 while I pay $35. You are still sponsoring my policeman, plus all the stuff I don't want.
Well, I don't have a kid so now I'm sponsoring your kids education.
You see, again you missed my earlier point completely. You seem to be arguing about necessary expenses and services that we can agree on. The problem is that there are a ton of unnecessary expense and services that we cannot agree is necessary. But yet you seem to ignore that and say I should want the government to take more of my less because of a percentage difference. Well, they shouldn't be taking to cover some of that stuff to begin with, my taxes should just be lower.
What happens when government takes more taxes in then they have in expenses? Outside of a small rainy day accumulation, they all (at least in the US) have to spend it or give it back. Guess what they do most of the time, they spend it, this creates a fiscal liability which means they will need to raise taxes if they want or need to do something else. SO now we have all these unnecessary costs and programs or services that no matter how they are construed, only benefit a certain few citizens. Should the government still tax you more?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't care if you are paying 100 times more for something and sponsoring me in it, if it something that I don't want, need, or think should be part of the government's duties. If we are overspending on crap that isn't necessary, then that spending should stop and the taxes should be lowered to reflect it.
Here, try this mental exercise. Suppose you and I had our hypothetical roles reverses. I make the $1000 and you make the $100. Now suppose I offered to take you out to eat if you paid
I run AVG but not the default versions. Well, it's the same except I disable the link scanning, tool bars, and id protection crap and it seems to be smooth and light.
I was born, just not old enough to pay much attention. Ford was president when I started knowing about the little things like economy, foreign policy and so on. Carter was president when I started paying attention to it because it all the sudden started to suck.
I simply do not understand this logic. If I earn less, I should want the government to take more of my pay. And if I earn a lot less, they should take a lot more?
The problem is that not everyone thinks all the government stuff is needed- all the time. Obviously you need some support network for indigent people who need a hand up and not a hand out. You need police and fire and roads and a few other services, but not all of them and not to the levels they are at or some want them to be.
Here is an example, In my former home town, they claimed they needed to pass a tax to repair the roads as the economic down turn was depleting their coffers. It went on the ballot, was passed last year during a may election session, and what construction project did they spend the extra tax on? A fucking scenic bike path on some abandoned rail road right of way that the city purchased with the bulk of the previous years road fund. And this bike path doesn't even go near the current commercial zoned property which is a large reason why it was abandoned in the first place. I hope you aren't trying to say that I should ask the government to take more because I earn less when they are doing crap like this are you?
My god, you're right, we could build useless bike paths all over the world. Almost everyone see unneeded service in the government that they don't want to pay for. We need lower taxes because (at least in America) it seems like if the government has enough to cover what it spends, they will only spend more, even if they know they won't be able to cover it. It's a never ending story, the more you give them, the more they take, the more they take, the more different people want because they no longer have, to the more they spend. Rinse, Repeat, and tell me what a circular argument is.
You must have dated a stripper...
Don't worry, I thought I was too once.
You know what, you are right that this is a dangerous line of argument. And it's a line that already has been made by other countries in the middle east. Just look at the released diplomat cables.
Anyways, there is a strong difference between the threat of Iraq and Iran. Historically Iraq has been a defender not an aggressor in conflicts. They do more talking then action outside of supplying a few terrorist groups with funding that they then spend on conventional weapons. Iraq on the other hand has invaded two counties since 1970, they had used WMDs on both, the enemy forces and it's own citizens when the ruler felt threatened, and Iraq has been in armed conflict with the US within the previous 2 decades.
So obviously, there is a lot more to that line of reasoning as in the motivations behind the reasoning. I do not intend to demonstrate that as an absolute in reasoning, just a logical path to conclude with given the unique circumstances.
Really? Because Gore thought he owned a significant share of Occidental oil and declared that personally on his investment statements filed with the various government ethics entities. Gore actually benefited from oil prices increasing.
I'm sorry but if you think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or if you think that is the reason we invaded Iraq, you are a moron. It's actually the inverse where 9/11 had something to do with Iraq. Do not confuse the two as they are not the same. After 9/11, the threat that Iraq was became increasingly larger due to the actions of 9/11. It's because of 9/11 that George Bush wouldn't tolerate Iraq's non-compliance and hostile actions toward the US.
I can understand why your not diplomatic, you still havn't master the shift key or punctuation yet. But hey, it's a learning process, it just takes a little longer for some I guess. It might even take you longer to understand history and the stated reasons for doing things like invading Iraq. Gore most likely would have invaded Iraq given the same circumstances if not upon further developments due to the lack of action.
You should probably refrain from calling other people a moron when you can't quite reach that level.
We know he had represented that to be the case in chat's with Lamo in which he admitted to being behind the leaks. These Chat logs are also what got him arrested.
How can I be making stuff up that is public knowledge if you just look for it. I think maybe you have fallen into the trap of allowing your concerns to develop into allusions and now your suffering from the lack of the ability to discern reality from what you want it to be.
IF anything at all, it's because he succedded in releasing the information while the others didn't. But hey, your question incorrectly assumes that I don't think those guys should have gotten the capitol punishment. This is not the case at all.
I already stated that but I guess I could expand a bit. It's because he defrauded the government (we the people) in keeping his position when failing to follow the rules of classified information and did so not in some attempt at right a serious wrong, but in exposing and harming the country (again, we the people as in me and you personally).
You do realize that North and Poindexter have had their conviction overturned. They were railroaded from the start. I'm not advocating that we short circuit the legal process and not allow manning to defend himself or his action, but if he is found guilty and doesn't win on appeal, he needs to die.
Also, Iran Contra was only illegal because the beal amendment was being stretched beyond it's original intent to apply to a scam that was specifically designed to sidestep it. In other words, there was some unethical things done which was against the expressed intent of congress, but nothing in Iran Contra was illegal and the administration had the constitutional power to do what was done.
The president is the head of state. He determines who our friends and enemies are unless congress has declared war on them. The executive can make this determination independent of congress. What you are complaining about is the limits of congress that they couldn't control the administration when they tried. That is dangerous because it stops the branches of government from being separate.
Perhaps it is you who needs to think about this stuff a little more. And before you do that, try to keep and unbiased and open mind, then consider the effect and intent in an unbiased way. I think if you do this, you will see that anything done to violate the confidence presented to you and your government that you accepted willingly only to betray with an express intent of harming your government deserves the strongest punishment possible.
I wouldn't mind the leaking as much if it weren't for the bragging and self promotion. If the leaks were to actually expose wrongs by the government and non governmental organizations, then it's acceptable as the motives are genuine. But when it's primarily to promote your agenda or further your own fame or something in between, then it's little more then breaking the law for your own interest and it's no better then being a common criminal.
And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years until he finally broke into one and found a 9 year old girl tied up and reported it to the police. The fact that he may have saved some kid from horrendous treatment does not excuse the fact that he is/was a thief. While I'm not directly comparing wikkileaks to molesting a tied up nine year old girl, I am saying that the positive outcome doesn't excuse the motivation because it wasn't to help, but to hurt in the first place.
You don't know that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. He has championed military action on Iraq in the past as well as spoke about the need to remove Saddam from power.
He very well could have invaded Iraq. What I think would have transpired would have gone something more like this. Iraq would have started it's saber rattling again, Gore would have ordered a stategic strike on an aspirin factory in Iraq- killing a janitor, Saddam would have retaliated by giving some of it's old WMDs to terrorist who would have used them on western targets, Gore would have invaded.
And BTW, the was the logic behind Bush's neccesity for the invasion of Iraq. I know people want to concentrate on WMDs and the connection to Al Qaeda that both seemed to be missing, but we couldn't verify it's absence and Bush sides on the side that protected us.
Yea, I don't know why people idolize Carter as the president he was. They must be clueless idiots who didn't bother checking into something they weren't around to experience.
Don't get me wrong, Carter is a great human being outside of his term as president and he had a lot going against him going in. But he simply was the worst president I can remember in my lifetime.
Wow.. Will you listen to yourself?
I mean seriously, do you really think people are educated and intelligent if they want to flee a country instead of fix it's problems and make it better? Do you really think people who claim to be educated and intelligent, actually are if they can't beat some idiot in an election?
I mean hell, if they are so much smarter, so much more intelligent, then why are they losing? I find it funny that every wants to claim Bush was the dumbest president in the history of the US, but at the same time, he was crafting some conspiracy to screw everything over. It seems like most people should be kicking themselves in the head for having such a conspiracy orchestrated on them by someone as stupid as Bush is made out to be. And here it's already getting warmed up to accept another failure when Palin gets elected.
I'm not really sure that educated and intelligent actually means what you think it means.
You know, you complain about 8 years of Bush but do not consider the alternative at all. Was 8 years of bush better then 8 years of Gore, most likely, was 8 years of bush better then 4-8 years of Kerry, most likely.
Is 4 years of Palin better then 8 years of obama, it seems to look like it.
Don't think everyone supports a idiots and jackasses when idiots and jackasses are all we get to choose from. I can't stand McCain and ended up voting for him over obamma.
Just remember, when on the edge, it's better to be moron then moroff.
What if you actually believe that Palin could be no worse then the current and last administration no matter how ignorant you think she is and just welcome someone who is straightforward. At least when I saw here speak, she just said it like she saw it. There was no say one thing and do another.
Failure of a woman to dress in a way that makes sure no one would get sexually excited does not in any way mean she is responsible for any rape or sexual assault that may happen. You are right, it is a failure, but the failure does not infer or imply any justification or right of action to Manning.
Really? You think that? giving out information that has the potential and actually did inflame tensions between interested parties didn't harm the US in any way? When I say jeopardy, I do not mean someone in the government is at risk, I mean out entire operations around the world and the interests of the US whether you agree with them or not.
I don't want him dead, I want him punished to the most extreme extent possible which happens to be the death penalty. And I want him punished not because he went up against the government, but because he took a job, swore and oath to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic, sought after and received clearance for classified information to some level, then forgot all that and attempted to damage and destroy the efforts of the same country by releasing the information he did after he was disciplined for actions of his own making.
This isn't some valiant warrior attempting to fight the evils he sees around him. He was a disgruntled employee who was trying to strike back at his employer which in this case ended up being the US government. He could have quit in protest, he could have notified several separate entities including the courts, federal prosecutors, congress, local and state entities, and media outlets of specific accusations or wrong doing instead of blindly releasing all sorts of information with the intent to damage the US.
You can go work for some company if you want to do that. If you are trying to damage the country, you can go to hell and I'm more then willing to help. And by you, I don't mean you specifically, I mean you as in anyone taking that action.
Nah, wikileaks only seems interested in harming the US government and the US economy.. That would seem to be beneath them as it could potentially help.
Didn't you read the part in the article summery where they said that have restored everything from known good backups?
How you know is by a hash file. You hash the files, store copies of the hash on systems other then the one the file it on, then you compare the hash of the current file with the known good file. If they match, they are good. If they don't, they aren't good.
True, but not all is lost as you seem to make it out to be.
I know you are just trolling, but even cursory glance at the article summery would tell you that this wasn't a linux problem, it was an exploit to a service running on the linux. Linux doesn't Nativity process SQL code until some SQL server service is installed and running. I know it's difficult to understand that an SQL server is different from an operating system when your a windows point and click jockey but you can look it up if you need to learn more about it.
What's wrong with my 3rd grade education? And exactly where exactly is the incorrect spelling?
Perhaps you haven't learned as much in all your years of schooling as I have in my 4 years.
Getting a job? Hell this explains why he couldn't get a date over the last couple of years. Didn't you know that women google you now before going on dates to see if you are some looser or something embarrassing might pop up and shame them in front of their girlfriends?
I had one girl shoot me down because she could fine 20 to 30 others with the same name as mine but not me on a google search. She claimed I was using an alias.