Not blatantly misleading, but there is the distinct odor of bias in these questions, especially when asked one after the other.
I agree with the 1st reply-poster above: WaPo is a rag, and these polls hold little merit.
I imagine the award winning "rag" Washington Post will continue to be a "rag" until its polls find more support for Wikileaks. Well, that's bad news for the BBC, since they will apparently be next on the pile. The BBC World News America/Harris Poll also finds that Americans oppose the release of classified documents from the American government by Wikileaks.
New York, N.Y. - January 4, 2011 - A new BBC World News America/Harris Poll finds that Americans are divided, with no consensus, as to how much freedom the media should have to publish confidential government documents. However, a sizable 69% to 18% of all adults agree that "publishing these documents could pose a security threat to the United States and therefore should be illegal."
You list press, police, and FBI as to where whistleblowers go. The correct path in the US federal government tends to be: Inspector General, Congress. It is fairly common for their to be ethics hotlines as well. It is harder to keep the protections if they don't use the system. Any retaliation on whistleblowers does need to be investigated and prosecuted if wrongdoing is established.
...calling WikiLeaks a whistleblower site does not accurately reflect the character of the project. It also does not explain why others who are engaged in open government, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection activities are wary of WikiLeaks or disdainful of it. . . .
WikiLeaks says that it is dedicated to fighting censorship, so a casual observer might assume that it is more or less a conventional liberal enterprise committed to enlightened democratic policies. But on closer inspection that is not quite the case. In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.
Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.
In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.
On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior.... more
I think you significantly overstate the extent to which the rest of the world is part of the United States of America.
Not at all. If you look at the last line in my post, you find the following: "World opinion is more favorable, but also split."
... US' spying on everybody else's communications at their fancy. Something that they make absolutely no secret of, since it is indeed in no way against US laws.
Actually the US has tried to keep its intelligence operations secret, as do practically all nations.
$5000... is not nearly enough to cover being known as an evil traitor everyone in the world. His reputation is now destroyed and is essentially unemployable in any company or organization that cares about its own image.
The American public is highly critical of the recent release of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks Web site and would support the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by U.S. authorities, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
Most of those polled - 68 percent - say the WikiLeaks' exposure of government documents about the State Department and U.S. diplomacy harms the public interest. Nearly as many - 59 percent - say the U.S. government should arrest Assange and charge him with a crime for releasing the diplomatic cables.
So, the only two change models you see are static and profligate? I'm thinking there might be something in-between. Besides which, project management can be a useful discipline.
If this really works, it could be huge. One of the interesting things about quantum computing is that there has been a fair amount of algorithm development done for quantum computers even though they are barely out of the concept stage.
A bit dated but nice general background article on quantum computers: The Quantum Computer
Then charge him with three counts of murder and 234 counts of attempted murder. Does it really matter that this was done with explosives? Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
Yes, it does matter. Bombs are inherently more dangerous. You want to persuade people not to use them. Legal penalties tend to scale with the seriousness of the offense. Possessing some minor illegal fireworks might get you a modest fine and maybe 30 days in jail. Possessing a bomb is going to result in a much harsher penalty.
If he had set off his bomb, but through some miracle it neither killed nor wounded anybody, he could still be charged with the use of the bomb - a criminal law weapon of mass destruction. That could still result in significant jail time. In this scenario, in which he didn't manage to kill or wound anybody, that would be useful since there would be no murder or maiming to charge him with, although you could still try for attempted murder. But the thing is, juries can do funny things. They might question if he really meant to kill anybody, that can't really question that he set off a bomb.
So in short you are outraged that that words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts? I don't think you will get very far with that.
By trumpeting the charges and re-defining the semantics behind the term WMD, we turn a legitimate case into a political circus. Moreover, when we cheapen a word or term (WMD in this case), when we redefined in an ad hoc manner away from the commonly accepted semantics of it, we setup a terrible precedent, one than can be legitimacy challenged by Tsarnaev's attorney.
The actual issue isn't the term "weapon of mass destruction" being, "redefined in an ad hoc manner away from the commonly accepted semantics of it," so much as inadequate understanding of the commentator. The term has been used that way in criminal law since well before 9-11. There is nothing that says that terms of art must be consistent in their meaning between military and civilian criminal law uses.
This is a slippery slope for something that is completely unnecessary. If we use that logic, does a mass shooting turns a rifle into a WMD? Does crashing a car to run into a store turns it into a WMD?
No, and No.
Do not turn our courts for such an important case into a political circus, please.
Just to be clear, Iraq did at one point have chemical weapons: The US knew this because the US had sold them to Iraq back in the 1980's.
Actually no, it didn't. The Iraqis manufactured their own chemical weapons. Ordinary insecticide plants can do it for some types, and some others can be used as industrial chemicals.
Sorry, that is BS. Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. Hellfire missiles are not WMDs in the military context even if they are for US domestic criminal law. So, suggesting that the President is using WMDs is nonsense. It would also be nonsense domestically in the US since government has the legal authority to use lethal force with weapons not available to civilians. Second, the US isn't deliberately attacking innocent civilian populations. The terrorists do, as did the Boston bomber. Launching a Hellfire missile at a SUV of senior al Qaida or Taliban members traveling down a road isn't going to kill many people other than the intended targets. So third, the 50:1 casualty rate is fiction. If it were true, you would need to find 50,000 dead civilians in the drone attack areas of Pakistan - there would be no way to cover that up. That is obviously nonsense as noted by the Pakistani government spokesman below. That doesn't mean that attacks are never made in error, or that innocent people are never killed. But that is a different question from deliberately targeting them.
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
From a wider angle, taking Afghanistan into account, it is the Taliban causing most of the casualties. And you would expect that since one of their key means of attack is bombs and mines placed along roads that kill whomever comes along, as well as bombings in market places, and attacks on institutions like schools. Those are mainly going to kill civilians.
Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Ex-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged his government secretly signed off on U.S. drone strikes, the first time a top past or present Pakistani official has admitted publicly to such a deal.
Pakistani leaders long have openly challenged the drone program and insisted they had no part in it. Musharraf's admission, though, suggests he and others did play some role, even if they didn't oversee the program or approve every attack.
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
Since this conflict is likely to continue for at least another 10, maybe as many as 40 years, eventually the US will have to face jihadis that have taken up arms against the West (including the US) that weren't born before 9/11/2001. If it hasn't happened yet, it probably will within another 4-5 years. It makes no difference, the qualifier is taking up arms against the US and the West, not birthdate. If we were to stop defending ourselves doesn't mean they would stop attacking. Al Qaida's goal is to restore the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, replace the national government in Muslim countries with strict Islamist governments, conquer the world for Islam to rule, convert the people to Islam, and governments to Sharia law. The fact that it might seem to be nonsense to us doesn't mean that isn't an important goal to them. Keep your eyes on Europe - there is a good chance that in 30 years time it will be facing civil war.
Personally I would like to see the size and scope of the federal government reduced. However national defense is the responsibility of the national government.
I like you sig, but your ideas and understanding of the issue could use some work. I understand you mean well.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe its a test of character?
Not blatantly misleading, but there is the distinct odor of bias in these questions, especially when asked one after the other.
I agree with the 1st reply-poster above: WaPo is a rag, and these polls hold little merit.
I imagine the award winning "rag" Washington Post will continue to be a "rag" until its polls find more support for Wikileaks. Well, that's bad news for the BBC, since they will apparently be next on the pile. The BBC World News America/Harris Poll also finds that Americans oppose the release of classified documents from the American government by Wikileaks.
BBC World News America/Harris Poll
Most People Think Releases by WikiLeaks Should be Illegal
New York, N.Y. - January 4, 2011 - A new BBC World News America/Harris Poll finds that Americans are divided, with no consensus, as to how much freedom the media should have to publish confidential government documents. However, a sizable 69% to 18% of all adults agree that "publishing these documents could pose a security threat to the United States and therefore should be illegal."
You list press, police, and FBI as to where whistleblowers go. The correct path in the US federal government tends to be: Inspector General, Congress. It is fairly common for their to be ethics hotlines as well. It is harder to keep the protections if they don't use the system. Any retaliation on whistleblowers does need to be investigated and prosecuted if wrongdoing is established.
They believe in transparent government. But they also believe in personal privacy.
Wikileaks has been a bit "uneven" in its respect for privacy.
Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review
...calling WikiLeaks a whistleblower site does not accurately reflect the character of the project. It also does not explain why others who are engaged in open government, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection activities are wary of WikiLeaks or disdainful of it. . . .
WikiLeaks says that it is dedicated to fighting censorship, so a casual observer might assume that it is more or less a conventional liberal enterprise committed to enlightened democratic policies. But on closer inspection that is not quite the case. In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.
Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.
In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.
On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior. ... more
Fair enough, but you need to clarify. Are you referring to Manning, Snowden, or this guy?
I think you significantly overstate the extent to which the rest of the world is part of the United States of America.
Not at all. If you look at the last line in my post, you find the following: "World opinion is more favorable, but also split."
... US' spying on everybody else's communications at their fancy. Something that they make absolutely no secret of, since it is indeed in no way against US laws.
Actually the US has tried to keep its intelligence operations secret, as do practically all nations.
LOL - I understand. You're entitled than. ;)
FWIW, I think daylight might be that way. ---->
Heh. Enjoy your weekend.
I see. That is helpful. Thank you for that clarification.
Thank you for that clarification.
That is probably a good thing. I am quite certain that Assange isn't Christ.
$5000 ... is not nearly enough to cover being known as an evil traitor everyone in the world. His reputation is now destroyed and is essentially unemployable in any company or organization that cares about its own image.
I think you significantly overstate the support for Assange and his activities. Living in a bubble with do that to you.
Poll: Americans say WikiLeaks harmed public interest; most want Assange arrested - December 14, 2010
The American public is highly critical of the recent release of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks Web site and would support the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by U.S. authorities, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
Most of those polled - 68 percent - say the WikiLeaks' exposure of government documents about the State Department and U.S. diplomacy harms the public interest. Nearly as many - 59 percent - say the U.S. government should arrest Assange and charge him with a crime for releasing the diplomatic cables.
World opinion is more favorable, but also split.
I think its fairly likely that DaveV1.0 owes fealty to neither Wikileaks nor you, hence no treason.
$5,000? Seems like quite a bit of work and risk for just $5,000.
I hadn't heard that Wikileaks operated in the style of the KGB.
Just Like Old Times: KGB Murders Continue
So, the only two change models you see are static and profligate? I'm thinking there might be something in-between. Besides which, project management can be a useful discipline.
.
If this really works, it could be huge. One of the interesting things about quantum computing is that there has been a fair amount of algorithm development done for quantum computers even though they are barely out of the concept stage.
A bit dated but nice general background article on quantum computers:
The Quantum Computer
This Ask Slashdot sponsored by: Dice.com.
Because stale, obsolete, rusty skills are the way to a solid future. Probably handling solid waste, that is.
Then charge him with three counts of murder and 234 counts of attempted murder. Does it really matter that this was done with explosives? Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
Yes, it does matter. Bombs are inherently more dangerous. You want to persuade people not to use them. Legal penalties tend to scale with the seriousness of the offense. Possessing some minor illegal fireworks might get you a modest fine and maybe 30 days in jail. Possessing a bomb is going to result in a much harsher penalty.
If he had set off his bomb, but through some miracle it neither killed nor wounded anybody, he could still be charged with the use of the bomb - a criminal law weapon of mass destruction. That could still result in significant jail time. In this scenario, in which he didn't manage to kill or wound anybody, that would be useful since there would be no murder or maiming to charge him with, although you could still try for attempted murder. But the thing is, juries can do funny things. They might question if he really meant to kill anybody, that can't really question that he set off a bomb.
So in short you are outraged that that words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts? I don't think you will get very far with that.
By trumpeting the charges and re-defining the semantics behind the term WMD, we turn a legitimate case into a political circus. Moreover, when we cheapen a word or term (WMD in this case), when we redefined in an ad hoc manner away from the commonly accepted semantics of it, we setup a terrible precedent, one than can be legitimacy challenged by Tsarnaev's attorney.
The actual issue isn't the term "weapon of mass destruction" being, "redefined in an ad hoc manner away from the commonly accepted semantics of it," so much as inadequate understanding of the commentator. The term has been used that way in criminal law since well before 9-11. There is nothing that says that terms of art must be consistent in their meaning between military and civilian criminal law uses.
This is a slippery slope for something that is completely unnecessary. If we use that logic, does a mass shooting turns a rifle into a WMD? Does crashing a car to run into a store turns it into a WMD?
No, and No.
Do not turn our courts for such an important case into a political circus, please.
That is not what is happening.
Just to be clear, Iraq did at one point have chemical weapons: The US knew this because the US had sold them to Iraq back in the 1980's.
Actually no, it didn't. The Iraqis manufactured their own chemical weapons. Ordinary insecticide plants can do it for some types, and some others can be used as industrial chemicals.
The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is well settled law.
Let's consolidate this so people aren't confused.
Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?
Sorry, that is BS. Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. Hellfire missiles are not WMDs in the military context even if they are for US domestic criminal law. So, suggesting that the President is using WMDs is nonsense. It would also be nonsense domestically in the US since government has the legal authority to use lethal force with weapons not available to civilians. Second, the US isn't deliberately attacking innocent civilian populations. The terrorists do, as did the Boston bomber. Launching a Hellfire missile at a SUV of senior al Qaida or Taliban members traveling down a road isn't going to kill many people other than the intended targets. So third, the 50:1 casualty rate is fiction. If it were true, you would need to find 50,000 dead civilians in the drone attack areas of Pakistan - there would be no way to cover that up. That is obviously nonsense as noted by the Pakistani government spokesman below. That doesn't mean that attacks are never made in error, or that innocent people are never killed. But that is a different question from deliberately targeting them.
Pakistan drone strikes: 2012
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
From a wider angle, taking Afghanistan into account, it is the Taliban causing most of the casualties. And you would expect that since one of their key means of attack is bombs and mines placed along roads that kill whomever comes along, as well as bombings in market places, and attacks on institutions like schools. Those are mainly going to kill civilians.
Taliban Causes Most Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan, U.N. Says
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
The SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. is not limited to geographic area. The US government and Pakistan have had an arrangement.
Ex-Pakistani President Musharraf admits secret deal with U.S. on drone strikes
Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Ex-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged his government secretly signed off on U.S. drone strikes, the first time a top past or present Pakistani official has admitted publicly to such a deal.
Pakistani leaders long have openly challenged the drone program and insisted they had no part in it. Musharraf's admission, though, suggests he and others did play some role, even if they didn't oversee the program or approve every attack.
My apologies, I should have looked at your first link and I didn't. So now I will address it: you need better sources of information.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
Since this conflict is likely to continue for at least another 10, maybe as many as 40 years, eventually the US will have to face jihadis that have taken up arms against the West (including the US) that weren't born before 9/11/2001. If it hasn't happened yet, it probably will within another 4-5 years. It makes no difference, the qualifier is taking up arms against the US and the West, not birthdate. If we were to stop defending ourselves doesn't mean they would stop attacking. Al Qaida's goal is to restore the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, replace the national government in Muslim countries with strict Islamist governments, conquer the world for Islam to rule, convert the people to Islam, and governments to Sharia law. The fact that it might seem to be nonsense to us doesn't mean that isn't an important goal to them. Keep your eyes on Europe - there is a good chance that in 30 years time it will be facing civil war.
Personally I would like to see the size and scope of the federal government reduced. However national defense is the responsibility of the national government.
I like you sig, but your ideas and understanding of the issue could use some work. I understand you mean well.
The Left Hates Conservatives
Not so much, no. To use an American expression, he tossed me a softball, even if inadvertently.
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
If you read this carefully I think you will find adequate scope to cover it.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Thank you for playing.