One of the women that is accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

James D. Catlin, a lawyer who recently represented Assange, said the sex assault investigation into the WikiLeaks founder is based on claims he didn't use condoms during sex with two Swedish women.

Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called "sex by surprise" or "unexpected sex."

One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have "ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups," according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.

While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White), a feminist anti-Castro group.

Professor Michael Seltzer pointed out that the group is led by Carlos Alberto Montaner who is reportedly connected to the CIA.

Shamir and Bennett also describe Ardin as a "leftist" who "published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba."

Shamir and Bennett noted that Las damas de blanco is partially funded by the US government and also counts Luis Posada Carriles as a supporter.

A declassified 1976 document (.pdf) revealed Posada to be a CIA agent. He has been convicted of terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of people.

Ardin is "a gender equity officer at Uppsula University – who chose to associate with a US funded group openly supported by a convicted terrorist and mass murderer," FireDogLake's Kirk James Murphy observed.

In August, Assange told Al-Jazeera that the accusations were "clearly a smear campaign."

"We have been warned that, for example, the Pentagon is planning on using dirty tricks to destroy our work," Assange told the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet.

The WikiLeaks founder said he was told to be careful of "sex traps." Had Assange fallen for one of those traps? "Maybe. Maybe not," he said.

Catlin observed that both Ardin and Sofia Wilén, the second accuser, sent SMS messages and tweets boasting of their conquests following the alleged "rapes."

"In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange's honour at her flat after the 'crime' and tweeted to her followers that she is with the 'the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!'" he wrote.

"The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape," Catlin said.

Ardin has also published a seven step guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends.

When the charges were first leveled in August, Gawker raised doubts that Ardin was working for the CIA.

"If anything, Ardin's outing tends to undercut Assange's conspiracy theory that one of his accusers is a major figure on Sweden's left fringe, freewheelingly indiscreet on her personal blog and, until her charges, an enthusiastic promoter of Assange's visit to the country," Gawker wrote.

After Interpol issued a digital "wanted" poster for Assange on Monday morning, an unnamed Scotland Yard source reportedly told Press Association it had been given the documents needed for the arrest. Police would not comment on the report publicly.

Several British news outlets speculated that Assange could be arrested as early as Tuesday.

On Monday evening, Mark Stephens, Assange's London lawyer, was negotiating with British authorities over an arrest warrant they'd received from their Swedish counterparts. Assange has vowed to fight extradition.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2010 02:03PM by pas'ion.

pas'ion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that
> Assange was not wanted for rape as has been
> reported, but for something called "sex by
> surprise" or "unexpected sex."
Attachments:

LOL

"Sex by surprise" is the new euphamism for my 4AM shenanigans.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

What a debacle. This is such a transparent attempt to railroad this guy. You would think the Feds and Interpol could come up with something better than "love with no glove."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Who hasn't pulled that stunt, ripping a condom off or "forgetting" to put it on somehow?

I called CIA skullduggery when this first came out, frankly I'm happy they did. I'd be happier still if they stuck him in the neck with an arsenic icepick and blamed it on Putin or Mossad, but thats just me.

IN all honesty, I've been very interested in what this Assange fairy has had to say, but at the end the day, he knows what type of shit he is stirring up and he's a fucking fool to think he'd get some heroes welcome by anyone but the most radical media.

He should have found some miserable shit nation like North Korea, Zimbabwe or Cuba to move to before he started naming names. But I think he's really pissed off everyone, even the most hated despots.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Number 1 reason to hate Assange, this pompous smile or smirk or whatever you want to call it.




-
Attachments:

You stick your hand in a dog's mouth, don't be surprised if you get your fingers bit off.

I'm sure he's happy to play the martyr, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Assange is the physical manifestation of Vince(1) and spunky.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Number 1 reason to hate Assange, this pompous
> smile or smirk or whatever you want to call it.

don't forget those hands.
creepy, creepy hands . . .

yeefuckinghaw

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who hasn't pulled that stunt, ripping a condom off
> or "forgetting" to put it on somehow?
>
> I called CIA skullduggery when this first came
> out, frankly I'm happy they did. I'd be happier
> still if they stuck him in the neck with an
> arsenic icepick and blamed it on Putin or Mossad,
> but thats just me.
>

LOL, that's me too.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Yeah I didn't believe for a second it was true, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist sort (though they all say that don't they!). There are a lot of people who don't much care for this guy. I actually quite like him - I appreciate his bringing greater transparency to the table. This latest salvo from wikileaks doesn't strike me as all that surprising really...Russia is corrupt (wow who knew!), the middle east is scared of Iran getting a bomb (shocker!), China helps NK, etc...I mean it's not really that new or deep.

The Iraq/Afghanistan stuff that was leaked, that was far richer in information - blatantly killing innocent people (video), releasing estimates of civilians killed (when the govt said they didn't) that sort of thing. That's real transparency but either way...I think what he's doing is good.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I didn't believe for a second it was true,
> and I'm not a conspiracy theorist sort (though
> they all say that don't they!). There are a lot
> of people who don't much care for this guy. I
> actually quite like him - I appreciate his
> bringing greater transparency to the table. This
> latest salvo from wikileaks doesn't strike me as
> all that surprising really...Russia is corrupt
> (wow who knew!), the middle east is scared of Iran
> getting a bomb (shocker!), China helps NK, etc...I
> mean it's not really that new or deep.
>
> The Iraq/Afghanistan stuff that was leaked, that
> was far richer in information - blatantly killing
> innocent people (video), releasing estimates of
> civilians killed (when the govt said they didn't)
> that sort of thing. That's real transparency but
> either way...I think what he's doing is good.


Innocent people? Yeah, that's why they were all armed with AK-47s.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

THat video that you're probably refering to has been proven to be hyped bullshit. If "reporters" hang around with the boys who are carrying AK's and planting bompbs, tough fucking shit. They desrve the lead they that ate and their defenders can suck my cock when talking about them like they have some privelege of journalistic immunity they supposedly deserve.

Do you like the fact that many Afghan informers who took payment from the US were outed by name or the fact the many of the Afghan leaks greatly benefited the Taliban?


Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I didn't believe for a second it was true,
> and I'm not a conspiracy theorist sort (though
> they all say that don't they!). There are a lot
> of people who don't much care for this guy. I
> actually quite like him - I appreciate his
> bringing greater transparency to the table. This
> latest salvo from wikileaks doesn't strike me as
> all that surprising really...Russia is corrupt
> (wow who knew!), the middle east is scared of Iran
> getting a bomb (shocker!), China helps NK, etc...I
> mean it's not really that new or deep.
>
> The Iraq/Afghanistan stuff that was leaked, that
> was far richer in information - blatantly killing
> innocent people (video), releasing estimates of
> civilians killed (when the govt said they didn't)
> that sort of thing. That's real transparency but
> either way...I think what he's doing is good.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Iraq/Afghanistan stuff that was leaked, that
> was far richer in information - blatantly killing
> innocent people (video)

did you watch the video? i did watch it and to me, it seemed quite clear that the the helicopter pilot thought he was in danger from an RPG attack. not only that but he didnt just go off and attack unjustly, he followed protocols to engage which included getting permission from people up the line. it's unfortunate that the photographer was killed but it's a war zone. you dont hear outrage about soldiers that die from friendly fire and people calling it murder. mistakes happen and sometimes people die because of it.

war is hell. do not forget that.



WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you like the fact that many Afghan informers
> who took payment from the US were outed by name or
> the fact the many of the Afghan leaks greatly
> benefited the Taliban?

the names were redacted before being released, so no informants were "outed". the only people outed here were government officials which has proven embarrassing for them.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2010 09:01PM by Gravis.

Gravis Wrote:
> the names were redacted before being released, so
> no informants were "outed". the only people outed
> here were government officials which has proven
> embarrassing for them.


I heard differing accounts- the one that the names were in fact compromised, the other that the names were redacted, but that the Taliban could and did ID several of the informers based on the nature of the info, ie "only Muhammedxxxx would know enough to have given that information"

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> > the names were redacted before being released, so
> > no informants were "outed". the only people outed
> > here were government officials which has proven
> > embarrassing for them.
>
>
> I heard differing accounts- the one that the names
> were in fact compromised, the other that the names
> were redacted, but that the Taliban could and did
> ID several of the informers based on the nature of
> the info, ie "only Muhammedxxxx would know enough
> to have given that information"

and yet not a single informant has been killed. soooo... i call bullshit. show me some bodies of informants and then we can talk.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
> and yet not a single informant has been killed.
> soooo... i call bullshit. show me some bodies of
> informants and then we can talk.

Thats a pretty bold statement saying not a single informant has been killed. I never made the claim that any had been killed- maybe they have or haven't, I don't know and I don't think you do either.

If at a minmum, he has given information about the Afghani informants without names, I heard the scenario still that the informants ID's are vulnerable to exposure because of the type of information that was made available. The possibility that they lived, died, had to flee, or were tortured and that their fate was in the hands of this Aussie cocksucker is pretty scary.

Now that he claims to have redacted the informants names shows a positive partiality but a partiality nonetheless, something this punk claimed not to have. Do you trust his intelligence skills to redact or censor a report he feels endangers people?

I don't.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> > and yet not a single informant has been killed.
> > soooo... i call bullshit. show me some bodies of
> > informants and then we can talk.
>
> Thats a pretty bold statement saying not a single
> informant has been killed. I never made the claim
> that any had been killed- maybe they have or
> haven't, I don't know and I don't think you do
> either.
>
> If at a minmum, he has given information about the
> Afghani informants without names, I heard the
> scenario still that the informants ID's are
> vulnerable to exposure because of the type of
> information that was made available. The
> possibility that they lived, died, had to flee, or
> were tortured

if anything had happened to any of the informants, the government would be shoving it in their face and use it to pull the plug on an international level.

this is politics, they will use any and all ammunition they can but it's clear they dont have anything but "it's embarrassing" and "that's private/secret!" if there were bodies, you damn well know they would be pointing right to them.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a debacle. This is such a transparent attempt
> to railroad this guy. You would think the Feds and
> Interpol could come up with something better than
> "love with no glove."


People do stupid things when they're desparate.

"Sex by surprise" LOL only in a wierd place like Sweden or Kentucky could there be such a law.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> > and yet not a single informant has been killed.
> > soooo... i call bullshit. show me some bodies of
> > informants and then we can talk.
>
> Thats a pretty bold statement saying not a single
> informant has been killed. I never made the claim
> that any had been killed- maybe they have or
> haven't, I don't know and I don't think you do
> either.

there's also this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

Quote

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."
Daniel Ellsberg Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg says silence puts lives at risk

But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

and here's a new article written by Assange himself: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332
i think he makes some good points, especially pointing out conflicting statements from the US government.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2010 06:37AM by Gravis.

The heck with Assange, I'd like to see them catch the person who released the information.

as an example, Bradley Manning is facing 52 years in prison for releasing that video.

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Dane Bramage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The heck with Assange, I'd like to see them catch
> the person who released the information.

i'm less concerned with the who and why than the how and where. the information being revealed is benign compared to what could be sent in secret to the real enemy.


> as an example, Bradley Manning is facing 52 years
> in prison for releasing that video.

the "make an example of them" stance is actually illegal as it violate the guarantee that each case will be treated equally. unfortunately, the law is not subject to the law.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I've said before, I find the leaks very interesting. But it is like filthy, disgusting gossip, you kind of want to hear it but you recognize the destructive nature of it.

Interesting also is the Left's mixed reaction to this guy, some are praising him, others are showing a little more common sense and comrehends the damage done. I would say to the people praising him to consider Wikileaks in the context of the Valerie Plame affair, a non-scandal in retrospect, but something to compare this to no doubt.

ASsnage is a cunt, and of course he is downplaying the harm these leaks have caused diplomatically, strategically and on the battlefield.


QUote form the BBC article-

"After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents.But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."






Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> > > and yet not a single informant has been
> killed.
> > > soooo... i call bullshit. show me some bodies
> of
> > > informants and then we can talk.
> >
> > Thats a pretty bold statement saying not a
> single
> > informant has been killed. I never made the
> claim
> > that any had been killed- maybe they have or
> > haven't, I don't know and I don't think you do
> > either.
>
> there's also this:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092
>
>
> After the release of an enormous haul of US
> defence department documents in August, Pentagon
> spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post:
> "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in
> Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure
> in the Wikileaks documents."
> Daniel Ellsberg Pentagon Papers whistle-blower
> Daniel Ellsberg says silence puts lives at risk
>
> But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag
> between exposure of these documents and jeopardy
> in the field."
>
> After this latest release a Pentagon official, who
> wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive
> nature of the material involved, told the
> McClatchy newspaper group that even three months
> later the US military still had no evidence that
> people had died or been harmed because of
> information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.
>
> and here's a new article written by Assange
> himself:
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks
> /dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-
> truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332
> i think he makes some good points, especially
> pointing out conflicting statements from the US
> government.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've said before, I find the leaks very
> interesting. But it is like filthy, disgusting
> gossip, you kind of want to hear it but you
> recognize the destructive nature of it.

actually, leaking the documents is not like gossip because it's fact. the contents of the documents are more like the gossip which is why it's embarrassing. it's a bad policy to be two-faced because it means they are lying to someone and nobody should be told lies. the real problem comes in when you get caught lying. i wish this would be a wakeup call to people telling lies but i have little faith in people who lie for a living.

we were promised more "transparency" in the government in the previous election and since then the government has become more secretive than ever. i think it's the shear volume of information that is classified that is the problem. people are concerned about what the government is doing and they should be allowed to know. i'm not saying some things shouldnt be classified but they are classifying even the most mundane information that has no need being classified. there are many cases where information shouldnt have to be classified or hidden from the public but it's their duplicitous actions which is why the "need" to have it classified.

the problem isnt that it's being released, the problem is why they didnt want it to be released in the first place.


> ASsnage is a cunt, and of course he is downplaying
> the harm these leaks have caused diplomatically,
> strategically and on the battlefield.

diplomacy should NOT be based on lies and duplicity. lies and liars should be exposed. what what strategy are you talking about? how have these harmed the battlefield?



> QUote form the BBC article-
>
> "After the release of an enormous haul of US
> defence department documents in August, Pentagon
> spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post:
> "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in
> Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure
> in the Wikileaks documents.But, he added: "There
> is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of
> these documents and jeopardy in the field."

look at my former response and you will see i actually posted that quote. however, you omitted the important statement that directly follows it.

"After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents."


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "After this latest release a Pentagon official,
> who wished to remain anonymous due to the
> sensitive nature of the material involved, told
> the McClatchy newspaper group that even three
> months later the US military still had no evidence
> that people had died or been harmed because of
> information gleaned from Wikileaks documents."


It doesn't matter if proof exists towards Afghan allies having actually been harmed or not. The simple possibility that their safety may have been compromised is enough of a crime (Morally, if not legally). Also, it will further harm our efforts to develop and keep spies, informants, and allied fighters.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't matter if proof exists towards Afghan
> allies having actually been harmed or not. The
> simple possibility that their safety may have been
> compromised is enough of a crime (Morally, if not
> legally).

the DoD already stated that there wasnt any information like that.


> it will further harm our efforts
> to develop and keep spies, informants, and allied
> fighters.

i disagree with that statement. btw... that sounds like it's right out of a speech various politicians have been giving. one might even call it propaganda.

conjecture is not an argument, it's a lack of an argument.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis wrote :

> "the DoD already stated that there wasnt any
> information like that."

IRRELEVANT.

WHAT DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN TPL SAID :
> "It doesn't matter if proof exists towards
> Afghan allies having actually been harmed or not."

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS.

'Gravis' wrote :
> "conjecture is not an argument,

YES IT IS.

> "it's a lack of an argument."

'CONJECTURE' - A conjecture is a proposition [or argument] that is unproven but
appears correct and has NOT been disproven.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture?wasRedirected=true << --- Click HERE

Gravis, a couple points.

I'm not sure of the legality of what Assange/Wikileaks did; they didn't take these documents directly, they just published them after someone provided them. The person who provided them clearly broke the law, and I'm glad he was caught/is being punished. However, Wikileaks provides a service that encourages people to break the law. I wouldn't say they're directly guilty, but I will say they are complicit.

Regardless of legality, it is completely irresponsible of them. It's nice to think that matters of the state should be handled transparently and truthfully, but that possibility went right out the window thousands of years ago when the first person decided to rule over others. Show me the leader of a country that handles the country's affairs honestly and without a shred of duplicity, and I'll show you a country that's not going to be around in this world much longer. So long as there's one government that's willing to resort to skullduggery, every government will need to employ similar tactics, and try to do it better than the others.

What Wikileaks has essentially done is walk up to a group of people playing poker and revealed all of their cards to each other. The leaked documents are more embarrasing than damaging, but there's no question that problems will arise because of them. For example, maybe Iran thought it was doing a pretty good job of keeping something from us, but something in the documents reveals that we knew more than they thought. They identify the holes, patch them up, and our intelligence community's job gets harder.

Another example; maybe one of our diplomats wrote something about how a particular negotiation tactic they were using with China was working to our advantage. The Chinese see that, realize what we're doing, and change it up. Or, maybe the diplomat called one of China's officials an asshole, so now they don't want to talk anymore. So on, and so forth.

We're never going to hear about the real, actual fallout from this whole debacle, because anything documenting it is probably classified, too. We're not going to know if informants are getting killed over this, because that would be an admission of how detrimental this really was to the country. It would undermine the peoples' faith in the ability of the government as a whole, not just the politicians running it. Not good for stability.

There's 300 million plus people in the country, and the government has to keep them all safe and happy. I'm not a brainwashed "the government is always right" type, but we the people put them in their position of authority. We collectively decided to give them the power to rule over us, so we shouldn't be second guessing their methods. If these leaks covered illegal government testing on American citizens, or blatant wartime atrocities, or a "government reall did do 9/11" type revelation, then I'd be as outraged as anyone. As it stands, the only thing these leaks reveal is that Assange is a smug asshole, and Wikileaks is only interested in their own agenda.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Gravis I agree with your posts regarding wikileaks, I too don't like liars or such a lack of transparency. It behooves the citizens to know what our government is doing on our behalf - they are serving us and I believe I have a right to know what they do in their service to us.

I'm not a fool (though many of you may disagree) and understand that many things will not be transparent for obvious reasons but for most things I prefer transparency and openness than duplicity and lies.

So without a condom, I guess that means his "Wiki" leaked all over them?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, Wikileaks
> provides a service that encourages people to break
> the law. I wouldn't say they're directly guilty,
> but I will say they are complicit.

no, wikileaks is for leaking any type of information that the public should know. there are plenty of documents that people/companies want/try to keep hidden and revealing them does not break any laws. the only person breaking the law here is the person(s) who stole classified information.


> Regardless of legality, it is completely
> irresponsible of them.

please explain.


> It's nice to think that
> matters of the state should be handled
> transparently and truthfully, but that possibility
> went right out the window thousands of years ago
> when the first person decided to rule over others.
> Show me the leader of a country that handles the
> country's affairs honestly and without a shred of
> duplicity, and I'll show you a country that's not
> going to be around in this world much longer. So
> long as there's one government that's willing to
> resort to skullduggery, every government will need
> to employ similar tactics, and try to do it better
> than the others.

the same thing can be said for business but google has attempted to avoid all of that stuff and admit when they have done something wrong. google is in a pool with a lot of sharks yet is thriving. people like honesty.


> What Wikileaks has essentially done is walk up to
> a group of people playing poker and revealed all
> of their cards to each other. The leaked
> documents are more embarrasing than damaging, but
> there's no question that problems will arise
> because of them. For example [...]
>
> We're never going to hear about the real, actual
> fallout from this whole debacle, because anything
> documenting it is probably classified, too.

it's easy to state theory but it's all hypothetical. there are also theories about how this could be the best thing for the world and how it could "save the world" or some other bullshit. i'm not interested in theories.


> We're not going to know if informants are getting killed
> over this, because that would be an admission of
> how detrimental this really was to the country.
> It would undermine the peoples' faith in the
> ability of the government as a whole, not just the
> politicians running it. Not good for stability.

BULLSHIT. they are looking for a way to crucify wikileaks and if they could smear their name in any way at all, they would. seriously though, how many suspected sex offenders are hunted via INTERPOL? smear campaign, anyone?


> We collectively
> decided to give them the power to rule over us, so
> we shouldn't be second guessing their methods.

this isnt second guessing, this is reporting what they have been doing. if we shouldnt know what they do, why would we have any news about the government at all?


> If these leaks covered illegal government testing on
> American citizens, or blatant wartime atrocities,
> or a "government reall did do 9/11" type
> revelation, then I'd be as outraged as anyone.

not everyone finds the same things to be outrageous. there are plenty of people that are outraged. (i'm not.)


> Wikileaks is only interested in their own agenda.

Quote
wikileaks site
Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public.

sounds like a news organization. is that so bad? just because the truth can hurt, doesnt mean nobody should know about it.



i have a neutral position about the release of the documents because there is nothing has been produced to support the assertion that this has hurt anyone aside from some bruised egos. i find it to be more like a comedy because of how various officials are trying to spin things in contradiction.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

OK here is the problem with this Assange guy and the defense of his behavior that people have mounted.This differs greatly from a typical case where one can argue protected free speech.

This is not like a web hosting service that unknowingly delivers child porn or other questionable material through a third party. Unlike Youtube, Photobucket or other websites that will quickly remove objectionable materials, Julian Assange sought out and made a mission to make public information that was guarded. He made a willing and conscious effort to do so.

IF you follow the logic of Julian Assange and his supporters, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the publication of nuclear secrets, battle plans, pipe bpmb and PCP recipes. "It's all public information, isn't it?"

Now Assange knows what he is doing as far as the shitstorm he has caused. There are claims they he redacted information that he felt could compromise or hurt informants in Afghanistan, frankly I cannot see trusting this guys judgement or what could possibly qualify him to differentiate between what information is harmful and what is not.

Assnage knew that the persons who delivered the info to him, such as soldier Bradley Manning, were doing so in violation of their own nations laws.

Assange has an agenda and an objective and I don't see it is possible he does not understand the scope of the information he revealed and the legality of the revelations in other nations. If he chooses to accept "martydom" with the realization that what he did was a crime, but it needed to be made public, I would consider him a very misguided but well intentioned person.

As it stands now, it seems he and his supporters are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If he was bold enough to make the inital exposure, he should be bold enough for the consequences.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Julian Assange sought out and made a mission to
> make public information that was guarded. He made
> a willing and conscious effort to do so.

he didnt steal the information. dont shoot the messenger because the news is bad.


> IF you follow the logic of Julian Assange and his
> supporters, there is absolutely nothing wrong with
> the publication of nuclear secrets, battle plans,
> pipe bpmb and PCP recipes. "It's all public
> information, isn't it?"

now you are just being ridiculous. however, i would be ok with people publishing recipes for PCP because of how stupid it is to take that drug. PCP has zero allure to anyone with half a braincell.


> There are claims they he
> redacted information that he felt could compromise
> or hurt informants in Afghanistan, frankly I
> cannot see trusting this guys judgement or what
> could possibly qualify him to differentiate
> between what information is harmful and what is
> not.

the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeopardized by the Wikileaks releases.


> Assnage knew that the persons who delivered the
> info to him, such as soldier Bradley Manning, were
> doing so in violation of their own nations laws.

what about all the newspapers that published the information and even aided in redacting the information? should they be charged with crimes like treason? those involved with the release of the pentagon papers werent imprisoned or charged with anything. why has the situation changed now?


> Assange has an agenda and an objective and I don't
> see it is possible he does not understand the
> scope of the information he revealed and the
> legality of the revelations in other nations.

he's not the only person involved here. Assange is more than a figurehead than anything else. there are a lot of people in wikileaks, it's not just him.


> he chooses to accept "martydom" with the
> realization that what he did was a crime,

which crime should he be charged with?



the reason many people in power are angry about this is because they are being made to look like spoiled children and being shown to be backstabbing hypocrites.

it's the political equivalent of being pantsed on the world stage.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

The crime was the willfull disemination of classified documents. Sure, you can argue he was just the messenger, but he made a concerted effort to procure such information and deliver it on a widescale basis.


what about all the newspapers that published the information and even aided in redacting the information? should they be charged with crimes like treason? those involved with the release of the pentagon papers werent imprisoned or charged with anything. why has the situation changed now?

That is the most reasonable argument you are making, Gravis. The difference is the scale and the fact Assange solicited and sought to damage (IMO) world superpowers and knew he was behaving as a conduit between treasonous spies and the general public. If you knowingly delivered an envelope filled with state secrets to a hostile force, an allied force or any force to whom that information was being guarded from for that matter, would you not be as guilty of treason?

As for other information available online, the Anarchists Cookbook kind of stuff, would you not feel a responsibility to protect the drug people from frying their own braincells or deliversing those substances to others? Or in more extreme cases people from not constructing explosive devices or nuclear materials, even though an argument can be made that such information has an intellectual value?

Don't get me wrong Gravis, I was all over reading this Wikileaks info when it came out and I am fascinated by the revelations also, but I also believe Assange should be aware of the scope of the material, the potential of damage and his own responsibility.I can't see how you find anything likable in what he did.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Gravis wrote :
----------------------------------------
> "he didnt steal the information.
> dont shoot the messenger because the news is bad."

I USED THIS LOGIC ALSO, THEY STILL CHARGED ME WILL BICYCLE THEFT.

Gravis wrote :
----------------------------------------------------
"the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeopardized by the Wikileaks releases."

TRUE, BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD HEAR IF THAT
INFORMATION HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE
FROM BEING DONE TO POSITIONS ALREADY COMPROMISED IN THE FIELD.

I hate to encourage this guy, but the statement in bold sounds like a fairly logical protocol of denial to follow.


*Lucifer* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis wrote :
> --------------------------------------------------
> --
> "the SecDef has said that no US soldiers,
> missions, or security were harmed or jeopardized
> by the Wikileaks releases."
>
> TRUE, BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD HEAR IF
> THAT
> INFORMATION HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED TO PREVENT FURTHER
> DAMAGE
> FROM BEING DONE TO POSITIONS ALREADY COMPROMISED
> IN THE FIELD.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The crime was the willfull disemination of
> classified documents. Sure, you can argue he was
> just the messenger, but he made a concerted effort
> to procure such information and deliver it on a
> widescale basis.

i dont see wikileaks as being interested in procuring these documents but rather as a safe haven to those who do. remember that the informants want to be anonymous, so fame is not an incentive. dont make the mistake of thinking wikileaks is exclusively for publishing government documents. many documents that have exposed the behaviors of banks and other corporations have been exposed as well.


> The difference is the scale and
> the fact Assange solicited and sought to damage
> (IMO) world superpowers and knew he was behaving
> as a conduit between treasonous spies and the
> general public. If you knowingly delivered an
> envelope filled with state secrets to a hostile
> force, an allied force or any force to whom that
> information was being guarded from for that
> matter, would you not be as guilty of treason?

governments need to be accountable for their actions. we must be vigilant in keeping our government accountable even if it's considered treason. secondly, the documents released do not help any hostile people. classified != information that could help our enemies. classified = information we dont want ANYONE to know.


> As for other information available online, the
> Anarchists Cookbook kind of stuff, would you not
> feel a responsibility to protect the drug people
> from frying their own braincells or deliversing
> those substances to others?

it is one thing to allow people to fry their own braincells, it's another to allow them to deliver the means to do so. before you say it, knowledge is not a means, it's simply the understanding of how to self-destruct.


> Or in more extreme
> cases people from not constructing explosive
> devices or nuclear materials, even though an
> argument can be made that such information has an
> intellectual value?

knowledge with the explicit intent of how to harm others is another matter completely.


> Assange should be aware of the scope of
> the material, the potential of damage and his own
> responsibility.

you are assuming he doesnt know.


> I can't see how you find anything likable in what he did.

you are assuming i find it "likable." everyone deserves a good defense because there is the possibility that they are correct in their assertions. seriously though, the actions taken to shutdown wikileaks and arrest assange border on being highly illegal and are echos of the behavior of the mob. i disapprove of such actions.


WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to encourage this guy, but the statement in
> bold sounds like a fairly logical protocol of
> denial to follow.

a) doubtful because they are looking for any reason to destroy wikileaks
b) is it a good thing that they would lie to us about something that people should know about?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2010 10:37AM by Gravis.

I think the rape charges against Assange are completely trumped up, sure. He needs to serve as an example of what happens when you disseminate classified material, but I really wish they wouldn't try to nail him on some bullshit charge like that. That said...

The military tends to handle its own shit in its own way, so the guy who actually took the documents would have been quietly punished and nobody would have really known about it. Assange wanted to share the fruits of this guy's crime with the world, and he wanted to slap his smug fucking face all over it, too. You can say "show me proof of how this has been damaging beyond simple embarassment," but the fact of the matter is we'll never KNOW the extent of the damage as that will also be classified material.

Let's say there was no damage, the military dealt with the leaker in private, and Assange experienced no repercussions. How long until someone else, starved for attention, steals classified information to pass on to Wikileaks? What if that information actually DID cause measurable damages? Would it stop being OK then?

The part that pisses me off the most is, this Assange clown is being treated like some sort of folk hero. He's not exposing anything significant; no revelations about secret government medical testing on civilians, no black ops reports, no assassinations, nothing. If the stuff Wikileaks is posting had Pentagon Papers-type revelations, that would be one thing. "Pantsing them on the world stage" does absolutely nothing but satisfy egos. He took a medium that was perfectly suited for exposing government and corporate atrocities and wasted it on posting a bunch of snarky diplomat communications.

I would have loved to see the Bank of America stuff, because that company has been tangibly fucking people for years. Probably won't get the chance now, because that smug cocksucker wanted to prove his little point.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the rape charges against Assange are
> completely trumped up, sure. He needs to serve as
> an example of what happens when you disseminate
> classified material, but I really wish they
> wouldn't try to nail him on some bullshit charge
> like that. That said...




They should have confiscated some laptop of his and "found" a hard drive full of child porn. I think that would have been more believable and damaging than an ambiguous rape charge.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They should have confiscated some laptop of his
> and "found" a hard drive full of child porn. I
> think that would have been more believable and
> damaging than an ambiguous rape charge.

Exactly. With the multitude of possibilities available to them, the thing the world's governments should be MOST embarrassed about is their inability to come up with something better.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the rape charges against Assange are
> completely trumped up, sure.

well at least you recognize that.


> He needs to serve as an example of what happens when
> you disseminate classified material

a) he's not a citizen of the US
b) he's a figurehead for an organization, jailing him would be pointless
c) it would make him a martyr and things would escalate (i.e. streisand effect)
d) if nothing bad was exposed, then why was it classified in the first place?


> but I really wish they wouldn't try to
> nail him on some bullshit charge like that.

the reason they are is because they have no legitimate claims against him.


> The military tends to handle its own shit in its
> own way, so the guy who actually took the
> documents would have been quietly punished and
> nobody would have really known about it.

i do not approve of such secretive behavior because it only sows mistrust.


> Assange wanted to share the fruits of this guy's
> crime with the world, and he wanted to slap his smug
> fucking face all over it, too.

that is just your perception.


> You can say "show
> me proof of how this has been damaging beyond
> simple embarassment," but the fact of the matter
> is we'll never KNOW the extent of the damage as
> that will also be classified material.

that's a 100% cop-out. they said their was no harm, so if they are lying, there is something very wrong with that. if they had said there was harm and didnt mention details, that would be a different matter.


> How long until
> someone else, starved for attention, steals
> classified information to pass on to Wikileaks?

Quote
me
remember that the informants want to be anonymous, so fame is not an incentive

if someone wants to release documents using their own name, there is nothing from stopping them from doing it themselves. the same goes for any crime. the whole point of wikileaks is to be anonymous.


> "Pantsing them on the world stage" does absolutely
> nothing but satisfy egos.

no, just the opposite, it exposes their duplicity. i dont approve of duplicity as it's not beneficial.


> I would have loved to see the Bank of America
> stuff, because that company has been tangibly
> fucking people for years. Probably won't get the
> chance now, because that smug cocksucker wanted to
> prove his little point.



i dont know what point you think he was trying to prove.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They should have confiscated some laptop of his
> and "found" a hard drive full of child porn. I
> think that would have been more believable and
> damaging than an ambiguous rape charge.

it would be a sad day for freedom when first-world governments do something so heinous.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

'Gravis' wrote :
------------------------------------
> "that's a 100% cop-out. they said their was no harm,
> so if they are lying, there is something very wrong with that."

NO THERE'S NOT.
IF YOU WANT TO BE PRIVY TO THAT SORT OF INFO,
I SUGGEST YOU JOIN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

> "if they had said there was harm and didnt mention details,
> that would be a different matter."

NO IT WOULDN'T.
THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT AND WHAT EVER THEY
THINK IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION AND MITIGATES
DAMAGES THE BEST.

Wingnut articulates his case better than Gravis, but I don't know whose argument has the most important points

The Judge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wingnut articulates his case better than Gravis,
> but I don't know whose argument has the most
> important points

I think Gravis's points work better in a "perfect world" scenario. I'm not saying he's naive, but I don't think he's acknowledging the incredible gap between what is and what should be.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think he's acknowledging the incredible gap
> between what is and what should be.

and thinking that "what is" is fine is the kind of mentality that keeps us in these kind of fucked up situations.

the world is far from perfect and the released documents expose that to the people. officials are all smiles until you expose them for the people they really are because it makes them vulnerable, not to foreign powers but to their own people.

in short, they dont want to let people know about their doings because what they do is unscrupulous, selfish, will bury any unsavory truths they are linked to and destroy those that would expose those things.


"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." - V


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2010 03:23PM by Gravis.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and it's that kind of mentality that keeps us in
> these kind of fucked up situations.
>
> the world is far from perfect and the released
> documents expose that to the people. officials
> are all smiles until you expose them for the
> people they really are because it makes them
> vulnerable, not to foreign powers but to their own
> people.

"The people they really are..." pretty much sums it up. They're people, and consequently slaves to the same human problems all people have. Sure, their indiscretions potentially have national and international impact, but until Jesus is running for every office and is appointed to every position, we're not going to have a government of perfect people. Realistically, the best we can ever hope to accomplish is to minimize the problems, as they'll never be eliminated.

Are we, as a nation, better off knowing the contents of these released documents? Will it somehow alter the political landscape? Absolutely not. Both Democrats and Republicans employ the same kind of backroom deals and dirty tricks. Until the day comes when we finally do away with the two-party system, we have to do the best we can with what we got. To me, that means if all the world's playing dirty politics, I hope we play it dirtier than anyone.

We don't live in a democracy, where every citizen has a say in the operation of the government; we are a republic. We give a select few the authority to decide how the nation should be run, and this is how they're doing it. If you don't like it, the only option you (or anyone has) is to get elected to office yourself and change it from the inside. Hell, I'll even vote for you.

> in short, they dont want to let people know about
> their doings because what they do is unscrupulous,
> selfish, will bury any unsavory truths they are
> linked to and destroy those that would expose
> those things.

The same way that every government in the world operates. Let's assume some really, really incriminating and damaging information was leaked; public outrage turns against the government, and the entire populace is so worked up, we demand immediate change and satisfaction. We demand a new, transparent government. It's a revolution, baby! We will not be oppressed anymore!

That will last until China or some other country decides to take advantage of the chaos and power vacuum, or until one power in America becomes strong enough to assert dominance. The end of America as we know it.

Really, that kind of revolution is the only alternative to continuing to buy into the system we currently have in place. You know, the system where we keep electing the same political parties to the same offices to get screwed the same way. So, if we're stuck with what we have, then we need to do the best we can with it. If it involves dirty politics, then again, I hope we're better at it than everyone else.

> "People should not be afraid of their governments.
> Governments should be afraid of their people." - V

I will see your quote by a fictitious comic book character, and raise you a quote by a real person:

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite.
"Every country has the government it deserves."

Josephe de Maistre 1753-1821
French writer and diplomat

P.S. Nothing but love, Gravis. I'm enjoying this spirited debate. Please don't take it personally.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The people they really are..." pretty much sums
> it up. They're people, and consequently slaves to
> the same human problems all people have. Sure,
> their indiscretions potentially have national and
> international impact, but until Jesus is running
> for every office and is appointed to every
> position, we're not going to have a government of
> perfect people. Realistically, the best we can
> ever hope to accomplish is to minimize the
> problems, as they'll never be eliminated.

i agree. however, i think people should "own up" to the things they do. i would feel much better with a "my bad, i'll do better in the future," than trying to hide it.


> Are we, as a nation, better off knowing the
> contents of these released documents? Will it
> somehow alter the political landscape? Absolutely
> not. Both Democrats and Republicans employ the
> same kind of backroom deals and dirty tricks.
> Until the day comes when we finally do away with
> the two-party system, we have to do the best we
> can with what we got.

in the short term, you are absolutely correct. however, people eventually get fed up with people doing greedy/selfish/childish bullshit like they are doing now and that is when change happens. eroding stone doesnt happen with a single downpour of rain, it takes time and more rain. you gotta think long term.


> To me, that means if all
> the world's playing dirty politics, I hope we play
> it dirtier than anyone.

that is also shortsighted.


> We don't live in a democracy, where every citizen
> has a say in the operation of the government; we
> are a republic. We give a select few the
> authority to decide how the nation should be run,
> and this is how they're doing it. If you don't
> like it, the only option you (or anyone has) is to
> get elected to office yourself and change it from
> the inside. Hell, I'll even vote for you.

i dont like how it's being run but i do not think it's my role to be a politician. besides, no one person can fix the system, assuming it's not beyond repair. if you notice, i dont make posts complaining about the government, i only provide counter points that i feel are true. i dont think i've ever made a strait up post with complaints without first another party initiating a discussion. i'm not really one for politics.


> > in short, they dont want to let people know about
> > their doings because what they do is unscrupulous,
> > selfish, will bury any unsavory truths they are
> > linked to and destroy those that would expose
> > those things.
>
> The same way that every government in the world
> operates.

"but everybody else it doing it!" :P


> Let's assume some really, really
> incriminating and damaging information was leaked;
> public outrage turns against the government, and
> the entire populace is so worked up, we demand
> immediate change and satisfaction. We demand a
> new, transparent government. It's a revolution,
> baby! We will not be oppressed anymore!

that would have to be some REALLY damaging information.


> That will last until China or some other country
> decides to take advantage of the chaos and power
> vacuum, or until one power in America becomes
> strong enough to assert dominance. The end of
> America as we know it.

i think americans are a lot more audacious in protecting their rights than people give them credit for. small incidents of injustice can spark riots across the nation. if some other country decides they want to take over, it's going to be a hell of a lot harder than they think.


> Really, that kind of revolution is the only
> alternative to continuing to buy into the system
> we currently have in place. You know, the system
> where we keep electing the same political parties
> to the same offices to get screwed the same way.
> So, if we're stuck with what we have, then we need
> to do the best we can with it.

agreed.


> If it involves
> dirty politics, then again, I hope we're better at
> it than everyone else.

i disagree. that though is still shortsighted.



> > "People should not be afraid of their
> governments.
> > Governments should be afraid of their people." -
> V
>
> I will see your quote by a fictitious comic book
> character, and raise you a quote by a real
> person:



though i think the point is still valid.


> Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite.
> "Every country has the government it deserves."
>
> Josephe de Maistre 1753-1821
> French writer and diplomat

i understand exactly what he's saying and i agree and disagree at the same time. i think people dont realize just how good they have it and they are undeserving of the freedom they have. as for me, i'm a neutral party for most everything though there would a be few instances where i would interject.

"if i am to be oppressed, i accept my oppression." - me


> P.S. Nothing but love, Gravis. I'm enjoying this
> spirited debate. Please don't take it personally.

dont worry about me, it's been my experience that other's loose their cool. i think it's the fact that i'm not getting upset as well that makes them even more upset. btw, i dont consider this to be a "spirited" at all. it seems rather tame to me.

then again...


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Actually, the quote by the fictitious V vharacter is a rewording of a quote by a real person:

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, the quote by the fictitious V vharacter
> is a rewording of a quote by a real person:
>
> "When the government fears the people, there is
> liberty. When the people fear the government,
> there is tyranny."
>
> Thomas Jefferson



"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."