Obama gets pantsed by Wikileaks.

[Yonivore]

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1)

I guess we'll see if Obama bows to them in the back channels as well. Should be interesting.

Also, I wonder when he adds that Wikileaks guy to his targeted assassinations list.

[Winehole23]

Queering nation-to-nation relationships by airing their dirty laundry in public is pretty ballsy.

I'm curious to hear Assange's pretext/rationale for doing so. I'm not quite sure what I would offer as my own if I were in his position. In fact I haven't come up with a single good one yet.

Can you think of one, Yoni?

Drachen?

[Drachen]

You are probably right about him getting pantsed, but hasn't most of the info leaked by wikileaks been more from the Bush era? I don't know.

However, more truthfully, the title of your thread should read "Current sitting president pantsed by wikileaks" since it doesn't matter who is in the white house. This would be bad for anyone.

[Drachen]

Queering nation-to-nation relationships by airing their dirty laundry in public is pretty ballsy.

I'm curious to hear Assange's pretext/rationale for doing so. I'm not quite sure what I would offer as my own if I were in his position. In fact I haven't come up with a single good one yet.

Can you think of one, Yoni?

Drachen?

I think that it has something to do with "the people can't hold their government responsible unless they know what they are doing." I could be wrong, but it seems like I have heard him say something similar to this.

[Yonivore]

Queering nation-to-nation relationships by airing their dirty laundry in public is pretty ballsy.

I'm curious to hear Assange's pretext/rationale for doing so. I'm not quite sure what I would offer as my own if I were in his position. In fact I haven't come up with a single good one yet.

Can you think of one, Yoni?

Drachen?
Death wish?

He's a loony pacifist...he sees this as his duty to humanity.

[Winehole23]

You are probably right about him getting pantsed, but hasn't most of the info leaked by wikileaks been more from the Bush eraNoting the dates mentioned @ the NYT link, one might get that impression. But like you said, it would be an embarrassment regardless.

[Drachen]

Noting the dates mentioned @ the NYT link, one might get that impression. But like you said, it would be an embarrassment regardless.

Yes, it doesn't matter if all it does is bring a bunch of embarrassing Bush stuff to light, Obama still has to deal with the fallout. I wouldn't want to be the president during this time, republican or democrat.

[Winehole23]

I think that it has something to do with "the people can't hold their government responsible unless they know what they are doing." I could be wrong, but it seems like I have heard him say something similar to this.Is it a matter of great public importance that Mr Assange is bringing to our attention, in your opinion?

[Winehole23]

Death wish?No need, if they've already gotten to him.


He's a loony pacifist...he sees this as his duty to humanity.To discredit political power, per se. That's sort of what I gathered.

[jack sommerset]

Somebody should put a bullet in this assholes head. Be done with this foolishness. Those libs that complain, do the same to them.

[Winehole23]

Those libs that complain, do the same to them.Once you give the carte blanche to shoot complainers, over time imperial stormtroppers will be less particular about party affiliation and your own days will be numbered because of the policy you instituted, bitch.

[Winehole23]

Death wish?Why isn't he dead already? Riddle me that. Surely we've killed people for doing far less.

[jack sommerset]

Once you give the carte blanche to shoot complainers, over time imperial stormtroppers will be less particular about party affiliation and your own days will be numbered because of the policy you instituted, bitch.

Before you get your panties in a bind, lets just kill the one guy and see what happens. Are you ok with that? Can we kill the one guy giving away national secrets? Is that ok with you?

[Winehole23]

Ok with me? You're asking me for permission to kill Assange?

Before I answer, I'd be curious as to why you think you need it in the first place.

Do you find your own justification unsatisfying, or were you just asking me to endorse your puny bloodlust? How pathetic.

[jack sommerset]

Ok with me? You're asking me for permission to kill Assange?

Before I answer, I'd be curious as to why you think you need it in the first place.

Do you find your own justification unsatisfying, or were you just asking me to endorse your puny bloodlust? How pathetic.

I agree, that answer or lack of one is pretty pathetic.

[CuckingFunt]

Before you get your panties in a bind, lets just kill the one guy and see what happens. Are you ok with that? Can we kill the one guy giving away national secrets? Is that ok with you?

No.

[Winehole23]

I agree, that answer or lack of one is pretty pathetic.My answer is obviously no.

[jack sommerset]

No.

Would you kill him for, lets say 1 billion dollars? No one will ever find out. Would you kill him then?

[CuckingFunt]

Would you kill him for, lets say 1 billion dollars? No one will ever find out. Would you kill him then?

Nah. That movie looked horrible.

[Drachen]

Is it a matter of great public importance that Mr Assange is bringing to our attention, in your opinion?

I will be honest, I don't know. I haven't read all that he has leaked, and therefore don't have an opinion. If I had to go with a gut feeling here, I would say that this is a bad thing. I am sure that the US govt is exaggerating the effects that this could have, but I am sure that some negative would come from it. The question is, who is this putting in danger, and is this worth it. That is why my gut feeling says bad, because if someone is put in danger unnecessarily, I don't want a part of it.

[Trainwreck2100]

this asshole keeps taking a shit on america and should be offed just for that

[boutons_deux]

How is this "pantsing" Magic Negro, but not dubya?

This insider info just proves that What You See and Hear from DC is pure bullshit, and the truth is very different.

Of course, the exceptions, to Yoni's great cheerleading credit, were that Saddam had WMD and the Iraq war was not about oil. :)

[Yonivore]

this asshole keeps taking a shit on america and should be offed just for that
Our President is a pussy.

[ElNono]

I thought conservatives were bitching that this administration didn't keep their promise of being open.
Now that you have the information you wanted, you're bitching?

[DJ Mbenga]

the guy needs to go on larry king again. so he can ask why everyone is not bowing down to him and saying you are awesome instead of reality which is everyone seems to hate the wiki leaks dude.

[Yonivore]

I thought conservatives were bitching that this administration didn't keep their promise of being open.
Now that you have the information you wanted, you're bitching?
We need a Wikileaks for domestic policy not foreign policy.

[CubanMustGo]

So when the leakdude starts doing this sort of thing for China and Russia I'll take him seriously. Right now he just looks like a prick with an axe to grind against the US. Sure, he says he's leaked more than US-centric stuff but all the big crap is about depantsing America.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So when the leakdude starts doing this sort of thing for China and Russia I'll take him seriously. Right now he just looks like a prick with an axe to grind against the US. Sure, he says he's leaked more than US-centric stuff but all the big crap is about depantsing America.

what's the matter? too embarassing to face all the shit your government does under everyone's noses?

Personally, I love it. Hopefully, Wikileaks starts focusing on exposing South American nations. They could start with Argieland over here and wouldn't even have to break a sweat finding shit out. Everything is out in the open, for all to see, and seemingly for everyone to ignore...

... not that anyone would give a crap what goes on down here, but its the principle of the thing you see.

[The Reckoning]

umm, isnt this treason?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

umm, isnt this treason?

hmm not unless you think Australia is America's 51st state :rolleyes

want to declare it an act of war as well?

[The Reckoning]

im talking about the american pfc who disclosed the info, smartass. he doesnt deserve a "lengthy prison sentence," he deserves death.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

im talking about the american pfc who disclosed the info, smartass. he doesnt deserve a "lengthy prison sentence," he deserves death.

aah yes, him :hat

[CubanMustGo]

Unlike some here, I am not a gung-ho "everything the US does is right" type. So, fine, Julian decides his purpose in life is to expose the US at every possibility. Trouble is that there's crap like this going on behind the scenes in every country; where's the balance?

Wikileaks' own about page originally said (http://web.archive.org/web/20080314204422/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About) the following: "Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. "

Somewhere along the way they decided that 'maximum political impact' was more important than their primary interest. So be it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Unlike some here, I am not a gung-ho "everything the US does is right" type. So, fine, Julian decides his purpose in life is to expose the US at every possibility. Trouble is that there's crap like this going on behind the scenes in every country; where's the balance?

Wikileaks' own about page originally said (http://web.archive.org/web/20080314204422/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About) the following: "Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. "

Somewhere along the way they decided that 'maximum political impact' was more important than their primary interest. So be it.

oh I agree, I think the point here is it seems getting their hands on classified information is easier in the US than say... China, Rusia, etc. Also, quite a bit less dangerous I imagine.

Lets not forget someone gave Wikileaks that information. I imagine if some Chinese insider was willing to risk certain death if caught to out the Chinese government's bullshit, then they'd publish that too.

[Winehole23]

Somewhere along the way they decided that 'maximum political impact' was more important than their primary interest.Embarrassing the USA. Is worth the inconvenience as a matter of principle, some have suggested.

Would you tend to agree?

[Winehole23]

im talking about the american pfc who disclosed the info, smartass. he doesnt deserve a "lengthy prison sentence," he deserves death.For some reason, the authorities don't seem to be stressing the expedience or desirability of that option.

[Winehole23]

Larry Franklin recently avoided charges of treason after passing way more sensitive info to agents of a foreign government.


Lichtblau, Eric. "Pentagon Analyst Admits Sharing Secret Data." New York Times, 6 Oct. 2005.
On 5 October 2005, former senior Defense Department analyst Lawrence A. Franklin "pleaded guilty in federal court" in Alexandria, Virginia, "to three criminal counts for improperly retaining and disclosing classified information.... The offenses carry a maximum of 25 years in prison, but as part of a plea agreement, prosecutors are expected to recommend leniency" in return for Franklin's "cooperation in a continuing investigation in the January trial of ... Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman," former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Johnston, David. "Former Military Analyst Gets Prison Term for Passing Information." New York Times, 21 Jan. 2006.

On 20 January 2006, a federal judge sentenced Lawrence A. Franklin "to 12 years and seven months in prison ... after the analyst admitted passing classified military information about Iran and Iraq to two pro-Israel lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat." The lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, "are scheduled for trial in April."
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/franklin.html

[Winehole23]

On Nov. 8, 2010, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) filed a massive 260-page motion (http://www.irmep.org/ila/11082010rosenvaipac.pdf) [.pdf] in the District of Columbia Superior Court. It asks Judge Erik Christian to dismiss former AIPAC employee Steven J. Rosen's $20 million defamation suit. In October the court dismissed all counts of the March 2009 lawsuit (http://irmep.org/ILA/rosen/default.asp) except for Rosen's claim of harm over AIPAC statements to the press that he did not uphold its standards of conduct. Rosen and AIPAC have – until now – abstained from filing damaging information about the internal workings of AIPAC in court. AIPAC's willingness to publicly air some extremely sordid and revealing content to get the remaining count thrown out before an alternative dispute resolution hearing begins in December is a sign that AIPAC is now fighting for its life, or – as one former AIPAC attorney put it – "reason for being." If Rosen proves in court that AIPAC has long handled classified information while lobbying for Israel, the worn public pretense that AIPAC is anything but a stealth extension of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs – from which it emerged in 1951 (http://irmep.org/ILA/AZCPA/) – will end forever.

AIPAC is firing its best shot now because it needs to get the case thrown out before Rosen can unleash a return salvo of "about 180" internal AIPAC documents showing that it routinely gathered "inside (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/rosen_claims_aipac_made_promis.html)" (Rosen's preferred euphemism for classified) information from U.S. government officials.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/11/17/aipac-bares-all-to-quash-lawsuit/

[Spurminator]

I'm going to go ahead and guess that 90% of you guys who are calling for death sentences, treason charges, etc., haven't even read about what the documents reveal. Just a hunch. But by all means, continue.

[The Reckoning]

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/11/17/aipac-bares-all-to-quash-lawsuit/


:wow

[The Reckoning]

I'm going to go ahead and guess that 90% of you guys who are calling for death sentences, treason charges, etc., haven't even read about what the documents reveal. Just a hunch. But by all means, continue.


i read the posted ny times article. does that count?

when people join the military, they sign their life over to the US government. if you're in the military, download classified documents and send them to a foreign organization without consent, that is treason in my book. the government has every right to take your life, which you bargained with, away.

[Winehole23]

That ship already sailed, boss. They're charging him for misusing information instead.

[Winehole23]

We need a Wikileaks for domestic policy...We already have one: retail politics+journalism.

[Winehole23]

Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks

[boutons_deux]

The go-along-to-get-advertizing FCM lied to us about Iraq, with the right-says-leftish but really neo-con and AIPAC-driven NYT and WP leading the charge.

Interesting that people are more concerned, enraged, shocked! about releasing the info rather than what the info is.

The info is the Best Damn News (ie, true) compared to the corporate shit shoveled at us.

[LnGrrrR]

Queering nation-to-nation relationships by airing their dirty laundry in public is pretty ballsy.

I'm curious to hear Assange's pretext/rationale for doing so. I'm not quite sure what I would offer as my own if I were in his position. In fact I haven't come up with a single good one yet.

Can you think of one, Yoni?

Drachen?

Does he need a justification? I mean, apart from "Because I can"? I would argue that if the leaders of said nation didn't want their dirty laundry being aired, they have two options:

1) Don't dirty the laundry.

2) Hide it better.

[LnGrrrR]

Before you get your panties in a bind, lets just kill the one guy and see what happens. Are you ok with that? Can we kill the one guy giving away national secrets? Is that ok with you?

Shouldn't we kill the guy who leaked it in the first place? After all, it's not Assange's job to keep that info secret, is it? It's the job of the people who caused the info to leak.

[LnGrrrR]

We need a Wikileaks for domestic policy not foreign policy.

Why not both? Or do you just inherently trust the government when it comes to foreign policy?

[Wild Cobra]

I will be honest, I don't know. I haven't read all that he has leaked, and therefore don't have an opinion. If I had to go with a gut feeling here, I would say that this is a bad thing. I am sure that the US govt is exaggerating the effects that this could have, but I am sure that some negative would come from it. The question is, who is this putting in danger, and is this worth it. That is why my gut feeling says bad, because if someone is put in danger unnecessarily, I don't want a part of it.
I agree. I have only heard a few topics it deals with, but haven't read any.

You know, as much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I think the state department suits her. She impressed me today:


I want to take a moment to discuss the recent news reports of classified documents that were illegally provided from United States government computers.

In my conversations with counterparts from around the world over the past few days, and in my meeting earlier today with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey, I’ve had very productive discussions on this issue.

The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.

This administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America’s national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy to thwarting international terrorism to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons to advancing human right and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims.

So let’s be clear. This disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign-policy interests. It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.

I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. The president and I have made these partnerships a priority, and we are proud of the progress that they have helped achieve. And they will remain at the center of our efforts.

I will not comment on or confirm what are alleged to be stolen State Department cables. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats’ personal assessments and observations.

I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington. Our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statements and our actions around the world.

I would also add that, to the American people and to our friends and partners, I want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information. I have directed that specific actions be taken at the State Department, in addition to new security safeguards at the Department of Defense and elsewhere, to protect State Department information so that this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again.

Relations between governments aren’t the only concern created by the publication of this material. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders and others outside of government who offer their own candid insights.

These conversations also depend on trust and confidence. For example, if an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s identity could have serious repercussions — imprisonment, torture, even death.

So whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others.

Now, I’m aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight. There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public, in the name of exposing wrongdoings or misdeeds. This is not one of those cases.

In contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. They are helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start, they are working hard everyday to solve serious practical problems, to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability.

This is the role that America plays in the world. This is the role our diplomats play in serving America. And it should make every one of us proud. The work of our diplomats doesn’t just benefit Americans, but also billions of others around the globe.

In addition to endangering particular individuals, disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government. People of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communication, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest. Every country, including the United States, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. And every country, including the United States, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern.

I know that diplomats around the world share this view. But this is not unique to diplomacy. In almost every profession, whether it’s law or journalism, finance or medicine or academia or running a small business, people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it. And so despite some of the rhetoric we’ve heard these past few days, confidential communications do not run counter to the public interest; they are fundamental to our ability to serve the public interest.

In America, we welcome genuine debate about pressing questions of public policy. We have elections about them. That is one of the greatest strengths of our democracy. It is part of who we are, and it is a priority for this administration. But stealing confidential documents and then releasing them without regard for the consequences does not serve the public good, and it is not the way to engage in a healthy debate.

In the past few days, I’ve spoken with many of my counterparts around the world, and we have all agreed that we will continue to focus on the issues and tasks at hand. In that spirit, President Obama and I remain committed to productive cooperation with our partners as we seek to build a better, more prosperous world for all.

[LnGrrrR]

Ha! Hilary on one hand saying that these documents show America is doing the right thing, then denouncing their disclosure. Then she talks about the "breach of trust" this displays... I'm sorry, but America has no "trusting" relationship with Wikileaks.

Now, she might have a point if America was confidentially speaking to another country's diplomat, and then that diploment went public. But Wikileaks as a third party doesn't have that same situation.

[DarrinS]

im talking about the american pfc who disclosed the info, smartass. he doesnt deserve a "lengthy prison sentence," he deserves death.


This guy? I wonder if Sean Penn will play him in the movie version?


http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/sites/politics.blogs.foxnews.com/files/category_pictures/Bradley%20Manning.JPG

[EVAY]

Regardless of whether or not the government is "only" charging the PFC who downloaded all this stuff with "misusing information", I honestly consider this treasonous on his part. I don't feel a need to kill they guy, but I sure do feel that he ought to be tried for treason.

[RandomGuy]

I agree. I have only heard a few topics it deals with, but haven't read any.

You know, as much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I think the state department suits her. She impressed me today:

Mrs. Clinton is, in my opinion, one of the best Secretary of State's that the US has had in modern history for a number of reasons.

I am not a fan of hers either, but watched a fascinating "under the hood" documentary by National Geographic of the State Department. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1010/Clinton_gets_birthday_serenade_at_film_highlightin g_States_unsung_heroes.html)

The people that work for State were invariably intelligent, well spoken, and diplomatic

It reinforced my inclination to apply there at some point.

[EVAY]

One of the results of this disclosure that concerns me is the retrenchment of agencies within the government who had been required to share information with each other after the 9/11 fiasco. Now they will say "we didn't share that the pentagon can't keep our stuff safe".

And that DOES make it harder to keep America safe, IMHO.

[EVAY]

My guess is that none of us are crazy about Hilary Clinton, personally. But she is an intelligent woman in a demanding job, and she at least appears to be handling it as well as any in the last few years.

[DarrinS]

Mrs. Clinton is, in my opinion, one of the best Secretary of State's that the US has had in modern history for a number of reasons.

I am not a fan of hers either, but watched a fascinating "under the hood" documentary by National Geographic of the State Department. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1010/Clinton_gets_birthday_serenade_at_film_highlightin g_States_unsung_heroes.html)

The people that work for State were invariably intelligent, well spoken, and diplomatic

It reinforced my inclination to apply there at some point.


:lmao


RG sure likes himself some RG.

[RandomGuy]

My guess is that none of us are crazy about Hilary Clinton, personally. But she is an intelligent woman in a demanding job, and she at least appears to be handling it as well as any in the last few years.

Eyup.

She has the force of personality and stubbornness to be married to Bill Clinton, heh.

Couple this with a certain "star power" that they use to good effect, and it adds up.


The film cited a poll shortly before Clinton’s trip that found 9 of 10 Pakistanis had an unfavorable view of the United States. Several months later, that figure was 8 of 10 – an “inch” in the movement of public opinion in favor of the United States that Clinton said she would seek to build on.

[EVAY]

:lmao


RG sure likes himself some RG.

Damn, Darrin, we ought to hope that people like RG are willing to consider working for the government.

[EVAY]

I always want bright, energetic, intelligent people working for the government. Why wouldn't you, Darrin?

[Winehole23]

Does he need a justification? I mean, apart from "Because I can"? I would argue that if the leaders of said nation didn't want their dirty laundry being aired, they have two options:

1) Don't dirty the laundry.

2) Hide it better.Sure. No justification is needed. I just wondered what Mr. Assange's "principles" are. Because you can isn't a principle.

[EVAY]

I couldn't care less about folks getting embarassed. That is not the issue, imo, and suggesting that embarrassment is the only problem here trivializes it beyond what is reasonable.

I honestly think this is really bad.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao


RG sure likes himself some RG.

I have always valued public service. It was one of the motivations that led me to enlist in the Army.

The staff at State all seemed to share that value, unsurprisingly.

While I am sure you, like most cynics, scoff at this rather idealistic value, it exists nonetheless.

It has less to do with what I think of myself, and more to do with what I think of America.

[EVAY]

I have always valued public service. It was one of the motivations that led me to enlist in the Army.

The staff at State all seemed to share that value, unsurprisingly.

While I am sure you, like most cynics, scoff at this rather idealistic value, it exists nonetheless.

It has less to do with what I think of myself, and more to do with what I think of America.

:toast
and thank you.

[RandomGuy]

Sure. No justification is needed. I just wondered what Mr. Assange's "prinicples" are. Because you can isn't a principle.

"all information should be free" I guess.

Not something I would entirely agree with, although I am fairly syphathetic to almost all transparency issues. I certainly would not like discussions with my doctor to be in the public realm.

Similarly, I do not think that betraying what leaders of other countries tell us in confidence is a good thing.

[Wild Cobra]

Regardless of whether or not the government is "only" charging the PFC who downloaded all this stuff with "misusing information", I honestly consider this treasonous on his part. I don't feel a need to kill they guy, but I sure do feel that he ought to be tried for treason.
Yes.

He should be tried for treason. Absolutely. No if, ands, or buts.

I would say it also shows a serious lack of information control on the governments part. This was DoD, State department, etc. information. Not just information he was supposes to be able to access.

Just my opinion, but I'll bet that if president Clinton didn't slashed the military so much, this would have never occurred.

[Winehole23]

@LnGrrrR: Did you think think the juice was worth the squeeze?

What did the US public discover that was worth the possible damage the leaks have done to our foreign policy?

[clambake]

Just my opinion, but I'll bet that if president Clinton didn't slashed the military so much, this would have never occurred.

:lmao yeah, right. this soldier leaked because of clinton. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I have always valued public service. It was one of the motivations that led me to enlist in the Army.

The staff at State all seemed to share that value, unsurprisingly.

While I am sure you, like most cynics, scoff at this rather idealistic value, it exists nonetheless.

It has less to do with what I think of myself, and more to do with what I think of America.:toast
and thank you.
Yes, thank-you.

I too have an idealistic view of America, and in my view, liberals are destroying what it means to be American. Sorry for taking this off on a tangent, but one who has followed my posting know I hate the real hard left liberals. I wish we could deport them to a nation that would make them realize what America really is.

[Winehole23]

"all information should be free" I guess.

Not something I would entirely agree with, although I am fairly syphathetic to almost all transparency issues. I certainly would not like discussions with my doctor to be in the public realm.

Similarly, I do not think that betraying what leaders of other countries tell us in confidence is a good thing.Yep. I favor transparency too, but the value I put on it is not unlimited.

[Stringer_Bell]

I have always valued public service. It was one of the motivations that led me to enlist in the Army.

The staff at State all seemed to share that value, unsurprisingly.

While I am sure you, like most cynics, scoff at this rather idealistic value, it exists nonetheless.

It has less to do with what I think of myself, and more to do with what I think of America.

I don't think DarrinS necessarily meant anything negative with his comment, it was kinda humorous. Good luck if you choose to apply!

I usually don't have problems with the Wikileaks, but this one that exposes the pussy nature of various diplomats and governments around the world disturbs me. I prefer to think of the world's policy makers as strong, steadfast individuals working toward the best solutions possible - not a bunch of scaredy-cats crying and criticizing shit.

I fear the day when people look at their leaders and realize they have no spines. Oh noes!!!

[CuckingFunt]

Because you can isn't a principle.

Sadly, I think it is becoming one.

[CuckingFunt]

Sorry for taking this off on a tangent

No you're not. You bring that tangent into almost every thread you enter.

[clambake]

No you're not. You bring that tangent into almost every thread you enter.

you're right. the only thread i can remember where he didn't is his stalking thread.

[DarrinS]

@LnGrrrR: Did you think think the juice was worth the squeeze?

What did the US public discover that was worth the possible damage the leaks have done to our foreign policy?


Damn good point.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao yeah, right. this soldier leaked because of clinton. :lmao
How can you possible manage a profitable business when you make such stupid correlations?

My implied dislike was that he hurt the military position by removing military personal from key positions that understood the real needs. I have stated in the past the president Bush already did a slow 5 year reduction of forces.This was actual combat units and fixed station maintenance support. I know this as fact, because of how it affected me. I was essentially laid-off from the military soon after the cold war ended. I could have stayed in, but there were no job fields available that I desired. Since they did away with my MOS, I received a separation pay in excess of $28k in 1992. I saw the complete 5 year plans then. What president Clinton did, was cut farther. He wanted to say he cut the military too, when it was already cut as far as practical. He cut supply people, mess hall people, etc, hat were still needed in case of combat. This was a political show, not real savings, since all these jobs were replace by civilian contract employees. Namely Halliburton. When you liberals want to cry Halliburton, KBR, etc. Think Clinton. They were given contract jobs that had no right to be civilian contract in combat situations.

President Clinton...

Go fuck yourself!

[clambake]

you fucking moron. that soldier leaked because he wanted to. jesus, you're stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

No you're not. You bring that tangent into almost every thread you enter.
OK...

I'm busted...

What penalty are you giving me?

[CuckingFunt]

"all information should be free" I guess.

Not something I would entirely agree with, although I am fairly syphathetic to almost all transparency issues. I certainly would not like discussions with my doctor to be in the public realm.

Similarly, I do not think that betraying what leaders of other countries tell us in confidence is a good thing.

I would agree, but generally have difficulties marrying the WikiLeaks problem to the issue of transparency. There's a huge difference between willing, open, and honest disclosure/discourse, which is what I would consider true transparency to be, and the spread of questionably acquired state secrets (or whatever else). The ability to find a glut of information doesn't make the government any more transparent than it would be if that information remained hidden away.

[CuckingFunt]

OK...

I'm busted...

What penalty are you giving me?

Sorry, I'm not into that.

[The Reckoning]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/sites/politics.blogs.foxnews.com/files/category_pictures/Bradley%20Manning.JPG



douche

[Winehole23]

Sorry, I'm not into that.Some people charge for that. WC just asked for one on the house.

Lucky for him, abuse is free around here. :lol

[Winehole23]

(Frau Blucher)

[Wild Cobra]

you fucking moron. that soldier leaked because he wanted to. jesus, you're stupid.

I don't disagree with that. How did he have all that information available? With need to know... at least how it was practiced in the past, how did he ever get that much information?

This wasn't only his fault, but a breakdown in security measures.

[Wild Cobra]

Some people charge for that. WC just asked for one on the house.

Lucky for him, abuse is free around here. :lol
Abuse here is sometimes something I wish I could pay to stop!

[LnGrrrR]

@LnGrrrR: Did you think think the juice was worth the squeeze?

What did the US public discover that was worth the possible damage the leaks have done to our foreign policy?

I'm very hesitant to trust the claims of damage that the government usually puts forth.

Now, I haven't read the actual document, so maybe there is some stuff in there that could potentially damage a party. Anything like that would, preferably, be redacted. (Names, locations, etc etc.)

But the government will always spin it any way they can. Look at Hilary's press release. On one hand she says these documents show America is doing the right thing; on the other she says it's extremely damaging.

And I don't think it's necessarily about educating the American public, as much as it is sending a message to governments that they can't hide everything. A humbling, as it were. I think all governments could use that at times. I'm not sure if this was the "proper" way to do it, but I think it's a good message in general (the strategy may be right while the tactics aren't).

[LnGrrrR]

I wish we could deport them to a nation that would make them realize what America really is.

I don't think I can begin to express how ironic that statement is.

I guess I could try.

"I wish we could forcibly remove the people who think America sucks so they can see how awesome it is to have freedom and liberty in America!"

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think I can begin to express how ironic that statement is.

I guess I could try.

"I wish we could forcibly remove the people who think America sucks so they can see how awesome it is to have freedom and liberty in America!"
How about for just a week or two?

[CuckingFunt]

Abuse here is sometimes something I wish I could pay to stop!

It doesn't cost a thing to stop saying dumb shit like this:


How about for just a week or two?

[LnGrrrR]

I would agree, but generally have difficulties marrying the WikiLeaks problem to the issue of transparency. There's a huge difference between willing, open, and honest disclosure/discourse, which is what I would consider true transparency to be, and the spread of questionably acquired state secrets (or whatever else). The ability to find a glut of information doesn't make the government any more transparent than it would be if that information remained hidden away.

Two things to take from this:

1) It does show where weak spots are in the government's ability to protect information (after all, this is just one leak... how much more info may other nations know about us that we aren't aware of), and hopefully improves the process to keep these secrets safe

2) The current administration has shown that it only wishes to be transparent when it looks favorable upon them, which pretty much negates the whole idea of transparency in the first place. Transparency is created whether voluntary or not, in my eyes.

[LnGrrrR]

How about for just a week or two?

I think that's the same thing as wondering why all the citizens of the countries we bomb/cause upheaval in can't figure out why we're the good guys.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't disagree with that. How did he have all that information available? With need to know... at least how it was practiced in the past, how did he ever get that much information?

This wasn't only his fault, but a breakdown in security measures.

Agreed. If you're going to punish someone, punish the person who leaked it, as well as the people who were responsible for the security there.

[Wild Cobra]

I think that's the same thing as wondering why all the citizens of the countries we bomb/cause upheaval in can't figure out why we're the good guys.
Would you agree or disagree that we have a large number of liberals who despise us for our prosperity? That they think the rich nations steal from the poor, rather than it being the fault of the poor nations, and their executive structure?

[clambake]

what happened to the good ole days when you sell information and nobody gets caught?

[Wild Cobra]

what happened to the good ole days when you sell information and nobody gets caught?
I don't know. how about telling us Natasha.

[The Reckoning]

or of course its an elaborate scheme to confuse diplomatic ties with other countries in preparation of some radical change of diplomatic strategy in 2011.

[LnGrrrR]

Would you agree or disagree that we have a large number of liberals who despise us for our prosperity? That they think the rich nations steal from the poor, rather than it being the fault of the poor nations, and their executive structure?

I think you'd have to define large. Do you mean a great number, or a great percentage?

As far as the whole "fault of the poor nations"... do you mean the fault of the people living in them? Or the fault of the property they live on? Certainly, some poor countries WERE screwed over by richer nations in the past. (Ahem, Britain, ahem.)

I think the word "despise" is a bit much as well. I disagree with a lot of decisions that America has made; I don't despise them though.

[CuckingFunt]

Two things to take from this:

1) It does show where weak spots are in the government's ability to protect information (after all, this is just one leak... how much more info may other nations know about us that we aren't aware of), and hopefully improves the process to keep these secrets safe

2) The current administration has shown that it only wishes to be transparent when it looks favorable upon them, which pretty much negates the whole idea of transparency in the first place. Transparency is created whether voluntary or not, in my eyes.

I disagree slightly, but am willing to admit it might be largely due to nuance/semantics; my definition of transparency vs. the definition of transparency.

The difference for me lies within a portion of your first point, actually. This is just one leak, as you mentioned, and its existence begs the question of how much else is out there, positive or negative, waiting to be leaked. If anything, this website threatens the notion of transparency, rather than reinforces it. Not only does it contribute to an increasingly suspicious public (good when suspicion leads to a demand for accountability, bad when suspicion leads to jaded cynicism or complete disengagement), but likely scares the government toward increased caution, rather than increased openness.

[CuckingFunt]

Would you agree or disagree that we have a large number of liberals who despise us for our prosperity? That they think the rich nations steal from the poor, rather than it being the fault of the poor nations, and their executive structure?

I think we have a small number of liberals who have issues with our nation's prosperity based on such general and uninformed terms.

I think we have a large number of liberals, however, who are frustrated and/or angered by specific, measurable, verifiable policies and practices through which our nation has increased its wealth at the expense, directly, of poorer nations and poorer citizens within our own nation.

[EVAY]

but likely scares the government toward increased caution, rather than increased openness.

This is one of my biggest problems with it. The almost immediate reaction was the likelihood that the enforced "greater sharing of information between agencies" that was one of the results of the aftermath of 9/11 would be diminished. Agencies will say they didn't or won't share info. with others because they are afraid of leaks, and then that reality of less sharing will actually damage the nation's ability to protect itself.

[ElNono]

That they think the rich nations steal from the poor, rather than it being the fault of the poor nations, and their executive structure?

What would you know about poor nations and their executive structure to have an opinion on the subject?
What do you know about vulture funds that siphon resources from some of said countries? Or the IMF strongarming countries into who should be favored in deals and who shouldn't based on their own opinion of what democratic countries should be or do?

Now, I don't think ALL the problems in poor nations are a direct result of rich nations. But you can't simply entirely discount the influence of external capital on those countries and the ability to prey on their oftentimes delicate situations.

[Winehole23]

Abuse here is sometimes something I wish I could pay to stop!You give out enough for free already. What room do you have to bitch?

[LnGrrrR]

Not only does it contribute to an increasingly suspicious public (good when suspicion leads to a demand for accountability, bad when suspicion leads to jaded cynicism or complete disengagement), but likely scares the government toward increased caution, rather than increased openness.

I can see this concern. I would hope that it leads to better security measures, rather than less sharing total. I don't think that government was on the path to much more transparency before this incident, if it makes you feel any better.

[Winehole23]

Sadly, I think it is becoming one.The line between liberty and license can be hard to distinguish in a essentially licentious culture.

[Duff McCartney]

I have always valued public service. It was one of the motivations that led me to enlist in the Army.

The staff at State all seemed to share that value, unsurprisingly.

While I am sure you, like most cynics, scoff at this rather idealistic value, it exists nonetheless.

It has less to do with what I think of myself, and more to do with what I think of America.

I'm actually planning on going into State Department myself too. After I teach for a few then get my M.A. in International Relations. But I hear from my cousin the State Department is like the mob..or a gang, you have to be related to someone to get in. Very tough.

[Duff McCartney]

Would you agree or disagree that we have a large number of liberals who despise us for our prosperity? That they think the rich nations steal from the poor, rather than it being the fault of the poor nations, and their executive structure?

I don't think any liberal despises us for our prosperity. I'm a devout liberal, and I don't despise the United States for its prosperity. But I criticize it for its short comings in everything it does. And in the citizens of a nation that can't see beyond what is sent to them in a text message.

I wouldn't consider myself an idealist really, because it seems the only way to get through to people is to target their power or their pocket.

That said, I feel that the United States can be so much better. I can't bring together the ideals that we all supposedly stand for, and then watch as our government and our citizens don't live up to them. For instance, in places like Sudan where there's alot of bad things going on, really bad things, worse than Iraq, there's not a single soldier in the country. Why? Or Burma where there are terrible military juntas ruling the nation and sucking the wealth out.

Whatever the reasons for going into Iraq, if you buy into the one that Saddam was an evil man then we should rid the entire world of evil leaders. Because he's not the only one.

[Yonivore]

Whatever the reasons for going into Iraq, if you buy into the one that Saddam was an evil man then we should rid the entire world of evil leaders. Because he's not the only one.
But, he was the only one that spent the previous 12 years defying United Nations' demands and resolutions...not to mention attempting to assassinate a sitting President of the United States.

As for the rest of your post...The United States of America is the worst nation on the face of the planet...except for all the others.

[2centsworth]

I can't stop reading the leaks. No doubt some of the info will cost the lives of innocent people.

One doc I read specifically outlined top routes for iinnocent hostages to escape from Iran.

I'm sure most current and future escapees haven't got the memo their secret is no more.

[Winehole23]

innocent hostages?

[2centsworth]

innocent hostages?

Don't act like you have an opinion. Go copy and paste something

[The Reckoning]

looks like the wikileaks founder is pantsing more than obama.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/8168696/WikiLeaks-cables-Julian-Assange-lies-low-after-unleashing-tempest.html



Earlier this month a court in Stockholm granted an international arrest warrant after the Swedish director of prosecutions, Marianne Ny, said Mr Assange was “suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion”.

The Swedish media later reported that a request for his arrest had been sent around the world.

Mr Assange denies the allegations and has dismissed them as part of a “smear campaign” against him. His lawyer has said the women involved had consensual sex with Mr Assange.

However, sources close to Mr Assange admitted yesterday that he had been deliberately kept out of the limelight because of fears that the rape allegations would become a diversion from the story of the leaks.

[Winehole23]

Don't act like you have an opinion. Go copy and paste somethingI've stated opinions about this.

[Winehole23]

Are you asking me for one, 2cents?

[Winehole23]

@2centsworth:

You furnished no link to topical material and no opinion of your own, except for your low estimation of mine, and that people will surely die.

[Winehole23]

It would seem the treason ship has already sailed, but if you wanted my opinion on whether Manning's actions were treasonable, in a bare factual sense I think they probably were.

I can understand why people want to see him killed. But that ain't gonna happen.

[Winehole23]

Not at the hands of the justice system, anyway.

[Duff McCartney]

But, he was the only one that spent the previous 12 years defying United Nations' demands and resolutions...not to mention attempting to assassinate a sitting President of the United States.

As for the rest of your post...The United States of America is the worst nation on the face of the planet...except for all the others.

Yeah right, there's been leaders that have been defying demands and resolutions for alot longer than 12 years. And we've done nothing to them. Hell all the leaders in Israel defy UN demands and resolutions with respect to the Palestinians. But that doesn't mean jack shit to some people.

[LnGrrrR]

looks like the wikileaks founder is pantsing more than obama.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/8168696/WikiLeaks-cables-Julian-Assange-lies-low-after-unleashing-tempest.html

IIRC, that lawsuit was near immediately detracted.

[Winehole23]

@LnGrrrR: What lawsuit? You mean Sweden's warrant for Assange on assualt charges?

I think they were recently instated, after having been offered and withdrawn once previously. The Telegraph link nowhere indicates the Swedish prosecution has reached a conclusion and in fact seems to indicate the contrary:

If he attends a press conference or publicises his whereabouts he could be arrested and face deportation to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over claims that he assaulted two women last summer.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe Assange is appealing the warrant.

[Winehole23]

What's the venue for that?

[ChumpDumper]

What's the venue for that?Sweden's supreme court, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11880965

[Winehole23]

Mr. Assange is wanted for questioning. No charges have been filed yet.

[LnGrrrR]

@LnGrrrR: What lawsuit? You mean Sweden's warrant for Assange on assualt charges?

I think they were recently instated, after having been offered and withdrawn once previously. The Telegraph link nowhere indicates the Swedish prosecution has reached a conclusion and in fact seems to indicate the contrary:

Ah, I didn't hear about the re-instated bit, if that's true. I assumed the Telegraph link was to the original.

From wikipedia:



On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enk%C3%B6ping) on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm).[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#cite_note-80)[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#cite_note-81) Within 24 hours of the investigation opening, prosecutors withdrew the warrant to arrest him saying the accusations against him lacked substance. The chief prosecutor Eva Finné said "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". He was still being investigated for harassment,[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#cite_note-82) which covers reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact, a charge not serious enough to trigger an arrest warrant.


I see later down that the investigation was reopened; didn't know that. (And yes, I meant warrant, not lawsuit; thanks for the correction.)

Anywys, my overall (obviously poorly made) point was that he was not found guillty already, as the Reckoning's post seemed (to me) to imply.

[Wild Cobra]

I think we have a large number of liberals, however, who are frustrated and/or angered by specific, measurable, verifiable policies and practices through which our nation has increased its wealth at the expense, directly, of poorer nations and poorer citizens within our own nation.
I would say most of this occurs because the government keeps chipping away at the free market.

It used to cost nothing but start-up costs to start a business. Any person of little means could succeed with the right approach and idea. That's impossible today. It takes too much money to follow state, federal, county and city regulations. Then the costs of permits, etc. That's just one aspect.

Think about regulations. How many of them really benefit the public? I see them as normally keeping the rich in power, and hurting the small business.

Anyone have a complete summary of what it takes to start a business these days? This would be enlightening to those who never thought about it before.

[CuckingFunt]

I would say most of this occurs because the government keeps chipping away at the free market.

It used to cost nothing but start-up costs to start a business. Any person of little means could succeed with the right approach and idea. That's impossible today. It takes too much money to follow state, federal, county and city regulations. Then the costs of permits, etc. That's just one aspect.

Think about regulations. How many of them really benefit the public? I see them as normally keeping the rich in power, and hurting the small business.

Anyone have a complete summary of what it takes to start a business these days? This would be enlightening to those who never thought about it before.

I don't know how this is at all related to my post. Another unfortunate tangent, I'm assuming?

[Winehole23]

I don't know how this is at all related to my post. Another unfortunate tangent, I'm assuming? It could be deliberate. WC is good at getting other posters off-point.

[jack sommerset]

Looks like someone got a wanted poster...........for rape!!! LOL. Yes it's funny, it's goddamn funny.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/30/sweden.interpol.assange/index.html?hpt=T1

[The Reckoning]

rofl. i figured this would happen, but not so soon.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/hacktivist-takes-credit-for-wikileaks-attacks-via-twitter.html



A self-proclaimed "hacktivist" is apparently taking some credit for the Internet attacks that shut down many pages on WikiLeaks.org (http://www.wikileaks.org/) today.
The hacker, who goes by the name Jester, claims on his blog (http://www.th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/)to have used distributed denial of service attacks to bring down websites in the past -- the same method WikiLeaks says it was hampered by on Sunday and today.

On his blog, Jester describes himself as a"hacktivist for good" and someone who is "obstructing the lines of communication for terrorists, sympathizers, fixers, facilitators, oppressive regimes and other general bad guys."
Hacker fan videos on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC9gombvp8&feature=player_embedded), posted on Jester's website, state that "Jester claims to be an ex-military operative -- of which military he hasn't said -- and to have spent time in the Middle East physically fighting the war on terror."


looks like things arent going as wikileaks planned. "ex-hackers" can't protect their own goods.

[LnGrrrR]

looks like things arent going as wikileaks planned. "ex-hackers" can't protect their own goods.

Eh, distributed denial of service attacks can be hard to fight. You can set up your routers to deny responses to pings, but if it looks like legitimate traffic then they might not respond.

ElNoNo knows more about this than I, but DDOS attacks are a pain. That's why people make zombot armies.

The offending IPs will probably be blocked, so the victory is more likely temporary at best. Any hacker worth his salt probably isn't going to admit to hacking; my guess is he just claimed it. (Otherwise, said hacker will probably get hacked in turn, and no matter how good security is, your network can be breached. The only safe network is one that's unplugged from the wall.)

[greyforest]

Somebody should put a bullet in this assholes head. Be done with this foolishness. Those libs that complain, do the same to them.

Yeah! LIE TO US MORE GOVTS! FUCK THESE GUYS, KILL THEM!!

[Winehole23]

(too blue)

[Duff McCartney]

I would say most of this occurs because the government keeps chipping away at the free market.

It used to cost nothing but start-up costs to start a business. Any person of little means could succeed with the right approach and idea. That's impossible today. It takes too much money to follow state, federal, county and city regulations. Then the costs of permits, etc. That's just one aspect.

Yeah maybe when the West was still Spanish land did it cost nothing to start up a business. And even then it probably did cost money to start up a business. Sorry but it has never been just start-up costs to start a business. That's one of the foundations of infrastructure in any nation, taxes on property that happen almost immediately after a city is founded.

There may have been a cheap way to start a business, but it was probaby over one or two hundred years ago.

[Duff McCartney]

Think about regulations. How many of them really benefit the public? I see them as normally keeping the rich in power, and hurting the small business.

Alot of them benefit the public. Food safety, fire codes, work safety, regulating work hours.

The only one I would agree with you on that it kept the rich more rich, is the Food safety ones during the 1920's because rather than have businesses pay for the inspection, it fell on the government to pay for it. But then that's not really hurting business if they don't have to pay for it. Be it small or big.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah maybe when the West was still Spanish land did it cost nothing to start up a business. And even then it probably did cost money to start up a business. Sorry but it has never been just start-up costs to start a business. That's one of the foundations of infrastructure in any nation, taxes on property that happen almost immediately after a city is founded.

There may have been a cheap way to start a business, but it was probaby over one or two hundred years ago.
20 years ago, it was easy to start up a business. Not today.

[Wild Cobra]

Alot of them benefit the public. Food safety, fire codes, work safety, regulating work hours.
Allot of them don't. Regulations have gone overboard. I want to be able to buy whole unpasteurized food. That's almost impossible, and our health as a nation, is suffering.

[ElNono]

Eh, distributed denial of service attacks can be hard to fight. You can set up your routers to deny responses to pings, but if it looks like legitimate traffic then they might not respond.

ElNoNo knows more about this than I, but DDOS attacks are a pain. That's why people make zombot armies.

The offending IPs will probably be blocked, so the victory is more likely temporary at best. Any hacker worth his salt probably isn't going to admit to hacking; my guess is he just claimed it. (Otherwise, said hacker will probably get hacked in turn, and no matter how good security is, your network can be breached. The only safe network is one that's unplugged from the wall.)

DDOS attacks are indeed a pain, but they're truly not sustainable, so they're more of a time shift type of attack than actual permanent damage.
The public way Wikileaks operates though, it doesn't really matter.
Their website is really only a PR front. My understanding is that they use mostly Thor as an anonymous comm gateway, and you would think they use something like PGP for actual communications.
Then again, you would think the military/government would be using similar tech, but it doesn't look like it.

[ElNono]

UPDATE: This is what happens when you're a rook:

WikiLeaks hacker raided by the cops (http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/12/1/wikileaks-hacker-raided-cops/)

[The Reckoning]

UPDATE: This is what happens when you're a rook:

WikiLeaks hacker raided by the cops (http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/12/1/wikileaks-hacker-raided-cops/)


or maybe not???

http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would say most of this occurs because the government keeps chipping away at the free market.

It used to cost nothing but start-up costs to start a business. Any person of little means could succeed with the right approach and idea. That's impossible today. It takes too much money to follow state, federal, county and city regulations. Then the costs of permits, etc. That's just one aspect.

Think about regulations. How many of them really benefit the public? I see them as normally keeping the rich in power, and hurting the small business.

Anyone have a complete summary of what it takes to start a business these days? This would be enlightening to those who never thought about it before.

God you are fucking stupid. You start off with that GOP thought control 'free markets' drivel as if that ideal of a completely free economy is somehow desirable and then you go parts changer on us and talk about fucking permits. Permit to what? Install a flywheel?

You do not even have any idea what it actually costs to start a business. You are asking us to try and make your point. A CGL, leasing space, payroll, inventory, cash for purchase orders, etc. These are significant costs. Having to pay to set up an LLC is not.

If you have a payroll of over $1million dollars or consume a ton of energy in manufacturing or the like then you start eating some regulatory costs but then you are no longer a small business.

I have a friend that recently started up a business selling trees to parks and wildlife and he does not have any fucking clue what you are talking about.

You're fired.

[RandomGuy]

[Buying whole unpasteurized food] is almost impossible, and our health as a nation, is suffering.

Link?

Please provide proof of the assertion that the nation's health is overall suffering because of an inability to purchase unpasteurized food.

You must quantify both the benefits and the costs of both options.

[LnGrrrR]

Link?

Please provide proof of the assertion that the nation's health is overall suffering because of an inability to purchase unpasteurized food.

You must quantify both the benefits and the costs of both options.

I think those were two semi-related thoughts jammed together. I don't think WC meant the health of our nation is in jeopardy due to lack of ability to buy unpasteurized food.

I think people who want to sell "raw" milk/food should be forced to state that plainly on the front of their products. (Might that be heavy-handed? Sure. Them's the breaks.)

[Winehole23]

I can't stop reading the leaks. No doubt some of the info will cost the lives of innocent people.http://www.chron.com/news/article/AP-review-finds-no-threatened-WikiLeaks-sources-2164076.php#page-1

[LnGrrrR]

Queering nation-to-nation relationships by airing their dirty laundry in public is pretty ballsy.

I'm curious to hear Assange's pretext/rationale for doing so. I'm not quite sure what I would offer as my own if I were in his position. In fact I haven't come up with a single good one yet.

Can you think of one, Yoni?

Drachen?

I can think of one, personally. Obama has gone back on numerous campaign promises. Given this, I think we can question the validity of what he says. While it may not be the "best" method to discover these things, I think it is the "only" method. I'd rather our public leaders thought twice about whatever back deals they're negotiating, if there's a chance that info might leak.

In today's age, I think nearly any government transparency is a good thing.

[Winehole23]

I'd rather our public leaders thought twice about whatever back deals they're negotiating, if there's a chance that info might leak.Cuts both ways. If foreign counterparties doubt the security of State Department communiques, they might be more reluctant to negotiate with us in good faith.

I like transparency too, but feel a bit torn. Manning's is a US officer, Assange a journalist of sorts. I think it's ok to go after Manning -- he broke his oath; Assange OTOH carries no such responsibility and broke no laws.