That's stretching it. Why don't we just expose all of our nuclear secrets to Iran all in the name of 'freedom'?
Where does WF stand on WikiLeaks?
- Thread starter redwings0921
- Start date
That's stretching it. Why don't we just expose all of our nuclear secrets to Iran all in the name of 'freedom'?
In what way is that stretching it? They recieved a "New Media" award and broke an incredible number of stories this year. The Pentagon themselves referred to them as a whistleblower organization.
But more importantly: The courts have already decided that the "press" can legally publish leaked/confidential information, even if it is harmful to the country's interests(NyTimes vs. United States, about the Pentagon Papers) or was obtained illegally, and have also determined that foreigners get first amendment protection(BRIDGES v. WIXON).
With thoses 2 rulings in place and without a constitutional amendment, it seems pretty damn clear that Wikileaks also gets 1st amendment protection.
Sounds as if you advocate weakening our national defense to me. A leak is one thing but it's quite another to hire someone on the inside to procure secrets for you.
I believe that's called espionage and deserves a bullet - or a medal depending on what side you're on.
I believe that's called espionage and deserves a bullet - or a medal depending on what side you're on.
No, I advocate the freedom of press that was written into the bill of rights as a way to make sure that the press could always be a counterbalance against the government.
I advocate making sure that America stays a country worth defending, and believe that sacrificing the freedom of the press is a large step towards fascism. Our rights(especially the 1st amendment) are what make this country great, and are what have allowed it to become what it is. I will not turn my back on that because it's convenient.
They didn't hire anyone. They recieved leaks that were voluntarily given, exactly as the new york times did decades before them.
Last I checked "espionage" was intended for foreign agents, not members of the press. But then again, the last time I checked it also wasn't a Constitution Amendment(which would be necessary to override those incredibly clear court rulings you keep ignoring), so who knows?
I understand your position. I disagree with it, but I understand it. But the unavoidable fact is that it's completely unsupported by the constitution, any amendments or any supreme court rulings.
The idea that the leaks were "Bad" is defensible. The idea that the publishing of the was illegal is just ignorant.
OK. I guess my opinion doesn't matter because we're all going to do it your way for a while and see how it all turns out. In the meantime I'll code up my Rosetta Stone LP for the Chinese language learning lessons. Something tells me there's going to be a run on those very soon.
It'll be my hot new niche.
It'll be my hot new niche.
lol really??
So you are going to let the government arbitrarily decide what parts of free speech are 'dumb' or not? As soon as you have that we no longer have freedom of speech and are well on our way to tyranny.
At this point the cables and additional leaks have been backed up and mirrored probably hundreds of times and all that is required is a decryption key. People that feel the info should be known and have access to it could potentially distribute it. A bullet in Assange's head won't change that reality, nothing will.
Leaking classified military intelligence is not free speech or free press.
I'm annoyed about that,
on the other hand I'm happy the truth that the Lockerbie Bomber is coming to light.
fucking UK is full of pansies that bend to the will of terrorist threats.
I'm annoyed about that,
on the other hand I'm happy the truth that the Lockerbie Bomber is coming to light.
fucking UK is full of pansies that bend to the will of terrorist threats.
they went too far with this: WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security - CNN.com
fuck wikileaks. These people want to destroy the US
fuck wikileaks. These people want to destroy the US
Part of the order was that the United States should not tell these countries that their locations were vital infastructure. Do you think these countries should have been notified of that so they could allocate the necessary resources to combat terrorist attacks? If so, wouldn't this leak actually make us safer?
The United States has a limited ability to protect entities in other countries if their government isn't informed.
Now they attack to Visa, Mastercard and Paypal. Can we support for them? Neverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..............
Anon isn't Wikileaks.
XMCP123 has nicely explained why anyone with a love of freedom ought to support wikileaks.
Only other thing I can add is that sometimes, it's good to just fuck-shit-up, remind politicians who they work for. Doing so isn't always legal, But that doesn't make it bad. The Tolpuddle martyrs were breaking the law of the time, as was Mandela. Already, even though only a small fraction of the cables have been released there's a lot of interesting info coming out.
For example, the cable about Shell's involvement in Nigeria is eye opening and no-doubt will be useful to campaigners and reformists there.