JoinSign In
Forums
Chats
Clips
Search
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...62.html?hpid=topnews

More on how the cables were apparently easily copied to cdr. Sounds like they need to learn about ISO compliance!
 
Like (0 likes)
Re; the rape claims. I'e read a fair amount, and it seems that "American's" (North Americans? What ever.. so I'm putting it in quotes) don't have a withdrawn consent rape law? That once consent has been given, it's given and can't be withdrawn?

As a woman, I'm sorry, I have the right to say no at ANY time and for my partner to respect that and stop what ever the fuck s/he is doing. If I am having sexual intercourse on the understanding that a condom is used, and the guy knows the condom has come off and continues - yes, I'm sorry, in my eyes that is not what I have given consent for and thus is rape.
And don't anyone DARE to say that a man can't stop once he has started. That's utter bull shit.

As for the rest.

I believe very strongly that we, the general public, need to know a hell of a lot more about what goes on. Too much is kept secret.
BUT. I think a lot of the leaks have taken this way too far and are putting individuals at risk, and putting US at risk. A world with no secrets is all very nice and fluffy, but some secrets are needed..
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
I think a lot of the leaks have taken this way too far and are putting individuals at risk


I keep hearing that but I still don't see how.

Don't use the poor Afghan informers, please:
- As far as I know, none of them died.
- Nobody in the US would have given two shits if they died before the leaks.
 
Like (0 likes)
I don't mean specific individuals such as the informers..

One example - giving away secrets of espionage puts future operations at risk.. put's the operatives of those at risk.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
giving away secrets of espionage puts future operations at risk


That's the whole point of the leaks.
It makes it much harder to plan operations the people may not agree with.
Say the invasion of a foreign country.
Or two.
 
Like (0 likes)
Or the bombing of a third.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by MrsK:
Re; the rape claims. I'e read a fair amount, and it seems that "American's" (North Americans? What ever.. so I'm putting it in quotes) don't have a withdrawn consent rape law? That once consent has been given, it's given and can't be withdrawn?

As a woman, I'm sorry, I have the right to say no at ANY time and for my partner to respect that and stop what ever the fuck s/he is doing. If I am having sexual intercourse on the understanding that a condom is used, and the guy knows the condom has come off and continues - yes, I'm sorry, in my eyes that is not what I have given consent for and thus is rape.
And don't anyone DARE to say that a man can't stop once he has started. That's utter bull shit.

As for the rest.

I believe very strongly that we, the general public, need to know a hell of a lot more about what goes on. Too much is kept secret.
BUT. I think a lot of the leaks have taken this way too far and are putting individuals at risk, and putting US at risk. A world with no secrets is all very nice and fluffy, but some secrets are needed..


No. We do have that law. No means no, at any time during the act. Now, we have a bunch of seedy fucking lawyers who can almost always get their clients off if initial consent was given, so it amounts to the same thing. VERY tough to prosecute on that basis, but the law says no means no.
 
Like (0 likes)
I haven't seen anything that would put anyone at risk... so far. But the U.S. Government was offered 1st look and choice of redaction (pretty much, they obviously couldn't redact everything) and they very stupidly turned that down.

That was dumb of my Government. I think they did it to protect possible future prosecutions of Wikileaks people, which are never going to happen anyway.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
No means no, at any time during the act.


And with me these days, it is very much an act.
 
Like (0 likes)
This is why the governments of the world fear Wikileaks, and why they'll tey anything to silence them.

Showing this to the world will devalue every lie every government has ever told. It will shoe where the money came from, wnd to whom it went.

My bet is that when the world sees where the nazi gold went, things will fall pretty far.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Boogerhead:
My bet is that when the world sees where the nazi gold went, things will fall pretty far.


Switzerland and Sweden. No real mystery there.
 
Like (0 likes)
What I mean is the individual account holders, be they government, like the Bush family, corporate like GE or Siemens, or private. It also allows us to track the distribution of all that blood money and see who founded families, corporations or governments with the proceeds and interest. All of this has been kept very secret for the last half century or so.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by MrsK:
(...)
As a woman, I'm sorry, I have the right to say no at ANY time and for my partner to respect that and stop what ever the fuck s/he is doing. If I am having sexual intercourse on the understanding that a condom is used, and the guy knows the condom has come off and continues - yes, I'm sorry, in my eyes that is not what I have given consent for and thus is rape.
And don't anyone DARE to say that a man can't stop once he has started. That's utter bull shit.

Agreed

The problem with courts is that it is REALLY hard to prove that a relation happened without consent when it was consensual at start. If there are no signs of violence and if complaint is done certain time after the facts, it's hard to prove or disprove anything. And as prosecutors know from several cases (look Michael Jackson litigations) personal witness is the whore of the proofs (in Portuguese: "a prostituta das provas").

Courts are conservative in order to avoid a flood of litigation (specially involving wealthy people and starlets and wannabe celebrities).

Anyway the guy is an asshole for putting himself in this situation.

quote:

As for the rest.

I believe very strongly that we, the general public, need to know a hell of a lot more about what goes on. Too much is kept secret.
BUT. I think a lot of the leaks have taken this way too far and are putting individuals at risk, and putting US at risk. A world with no secrets is all very nice and fluffy, but some secrets are needed..


What I think is that Assange says he's journalist but don't behave like one. There are a real lot of "leaked" things that are only embarrassing because they're out of context, like "what ambassador x thinks about personality y". It's like bugging someone's phone and broadcasting private conversations. Really.

But there are also serious facts: covered corruption, illegal killings, torture... things that deserve be denounced, investigated and people put under trial for their misdoings.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Boogerhead:
What I mean is the individual account holders, be they government, like the Bush family, corporate like GE or Siemens, or private. It also allows us to track the distribution of all that blood money and see who founded families, corporations or governments with the proceeds and interest. All of this has been kept very secret for the last half century or so.


Nazi gold is long gone. And people who got it is mostly dead by now. BTW there are lots of lawyers that got "nazi gold" on behalf of victims while the victims themselves saw little (if any) of that money. It was an industry during 1970ies & early 1980ies.

But it would be interesting to know about "new" dirty money. Like: who gets money to allow drug enter USA/EU. How Chavez and the Castros finances their "little kingdoms". Who bought uranium from North Korea. Who deals with Afghanistan heroin. How finanes Iran. Etc...
 
Like (0 likes)
The "nazi" gold was kind of a metaphor, but the effects of that smuggled wealth are still very tangible.... Those who held it directly after teh war are indeed long dead, but their heirs....

Yeah, NK uranium deals, Afghan poppy crops, La Eme/ Cartel deals, CIA, FBI Et Al... Corporate hedgemony.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Boogerhead:
The "nazi" gold was kind of a metaphor, but the effects of that smuggled wealth are still very tangible.... Those who held it directly after teh war are indeed long dead, but their heirs....
(...)


Huge part of "Nazi gold" (meant what was not confiscated by Allies at end of WWII) was used to relocate former Nazi authorities and criminals in LA and other places. The money that stood in Switzerland was owned basically by Jewish families murdered or badly disassembled by Nazis or else ones who had the bad luck of standing in the wrong side of frontier (Soviet) when war was over. Virtually all of this money was recovered by lawyers during 1970ies and 1980ies though little reached legitimate owners. So, yeah... there are some rich lawyers around.
 
Like (0 likes)
Not to mention that when the haven that was Switzerland became too aparent, they shifted the bulk of their war profits to offshore accounts, in the Caymans, where this info is being leaked from. THis is something the old guys in "Spook COuntry" and "Zero History" would be very interested in, I think...
 
Like (0 likes)
According to a Congressional official (unnamed), the US government lied about Wikileaks damage.

That link's to Reuters; here's the text of a blog post on the subject over at Firedoglake:

quote:
Mark Hosenball reports that aside from some pockets of short-term damage, the impact of the Wikileaks leak of diplomatic cables has been embarrassing, but not damaging.

quote:
Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration’s public statements to the contrary.

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.

“I think they just want to present the toughest front they can muster,” the official said.

But State Department officials have privately told Congress they expect overall damage to U.S. foreign policy to be containable, said the official, one of two congressional aides familiar with the briefings who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

“We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging,” said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials.

[snip]

National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown “pockets” of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. [my emphasis]


More important than yet another indication that the Obama Administration has oversold the damage done by Wikileaks is the reason given by Hosenball’s Congressional source as to why they oversold that damage: to bolster legal efforts to shut down Wikileaks’ website.

The Administration lied, says a congressional official, to make it easier to shut down Wikileaks.

Now that’s important for several reasons. First, all this time the government has been pretending that the series of decisions by private corporations to stop doing business with Wikileaks were made by the businesses on their own. Surprise surprise (not!), it seems that the government was affirmatively trying to shut down Wikileaks.

Just as importantly, Hosenball’s story seems to suggest, the government was going to service providers–the same service providers they routinely go to on terrorist investigations–and lying to get them to do the government’s bidding. The government was making claims about the damage of the leak to convince service providers to shut down Wikileaks.

And companies like Amazon, Visa, and PayPal complied.

So, to these companies, now tainted with cooperation in government censorship, was it worth it? Was it worth being branded as a collaborator, knowing you were lied to?

And to Philip Crowley, whom Hosenball quotes talking about “substantial” damage: given your critique of Tunisia’s suppression of social media, and given that we now know you lied in the service of similar repression, do you still want to claim there’s no disjunct between claiming to support free speech while squelching that of Wikileaks?



All very interesting.

Oh, and:

[snigger] Hosenball [/snigger]
 
Like (0 likes)
This is pure bullshit:

quote:
More important than yet another indication that the Obama Administration has oversold the damage done by Wikileaks is the reason given by Hosenball’s Congressional source as to why they oversold that damage: to bolster legal efforts to shut down Wikileaks’ website.


They oversold the damage for purely geo-political reasons, not legal ones. The U.S. Government doesn't need to take any legal action to get companies like Amazon, Visa, and PayPal to shitcan Wikileaks. They just say,

"You can be Wikileaks' buddy or ours -- not both."

And as for this question,

quote:
So, to these companies, now tainted with cooperation in government censorship, was it worth it? Was it worth being branded as a collaborator, knowing you were lied to?


Here's what Amazon, Visa, and PayPal are saying:

"You god damned right it was worth it. Our ability to do business demands we safeguard our relationship with World Governments, not our relationship with a bunch of anarchist hippies who won't even provide an address. We haven't lost one penny of business by shitcanning Wikileaks. Not a cent."

I'm not saying the U.S. Government was morally correct in what it did. Just that it did it, and will continue to do it in a way that only rarely involves courts of law. And that writers like the one above are full of shit if they think Wikileaks has the power to do anything about it.

Overall, Wikileaks has been one large fail. Regardless of who is outraged by that, it remains true.
 
Like (0 likes)
NYT on Assange

Long but good.

quote:
Schmitt told me that for all Assange’s bombast and dark conspiracy theories, he had a bit of Peter Pan in him. One night, when they were all walking down the street after dinner, Assange suddenly started skipping ahead of the group. Schmitt and Goetz stared, speechless. Then, just as suddenly, Assange stopped, got back in step with them and returned to the conversation he had interrupted.


Stuff like that doesn't make Assange seem more likely to commit rape. It makes him seem unstable, and that makes him more likely to do anything at all.

I'm not saying the NYT's word on this is the best, and certainly not the final word. But I don't see how anyone can be serious about the issue and not read it, which is undoubtedly the situation with most Assange supporters on Daily Kos.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Stuff like that doesn't make Assange seem more likely to commit rape. It makes him seem unstable, and that makes him more likely to do anything at all.


Thing is: when one does certain things he'd better not to do other things. Like, when one mess governments he must refrain from putting himself in morally reproachful situation.

Clinton learned that the hard way. Now Assange just did the same. The only piece lacking is a sperm embedded skirt... or condom...
 
Like (0 likes)
There'll be that and more. It's why he's fighting extradition.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Stuff like that doesn't make Assange seem more likely to commit rape. It makes him seem unstable, and that makes him more likely to do anything at all.

This unstable?
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Boogerhead:
It is looking more and more like the rape charges were fabricated because there is absolutley NO LINK WHATSOEVER between Assange and Manning. The only thing they could use to imprison him are the rape charges.


Come on Boog. Think about what you're saying there. Unless that's sarcasm.

The US Government didn't charge him with rape.
 
Like (0 likes)
Like, something bad happened to me so it must be the workings of my enemy. My barley crop was low this year, so my neighbor is a witch.
 
Like (0 likes)
Yeah, not serious there... Tongue firmly in cheek...
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
My barley crop was low this year, so my neighbor is a witch.

BRN THE WITCH!
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Boogerhead:
Yeah, not serious there... Tongue firmly in cheek...


Please forgive me.

I've seen the exact argument thrown down seriously.
 
Like (0 likes)
I thought I'd linked it back to one such article, complete with commentary, but apparently my internet skills need some polishing.
 
Like (0 likes)
 
Like (0 likes)
It's not a closed process to protect Assange's identity, but it well could be. That's why it's closed, anyway.

Of course, Assange's lawyers will say it's the motherfucking CIA.

The prosecution and the court should get everyone's consent to OPEN it. THEN listen to Assange's camp scream bloody murder.
 
Like (0 likes)
BofA is a powerful enemy to have made.

The light is creeping into this .. .. .. I mean, here's this behemoth, this bank that's "too big to fail", that's activly hounding media and reporters over their coverge of legitimate news because they don't like what they're reporting.

Fascism?

Please, friends, boycottBofA. To not do so is to become an enemy of truth, reason and equality.

[
 
Like (0 likes)
Yeah, BofA actually comes across as more disgusting than Assange.

Dumb move.
 
Like (0 likes)
When you threaten to show the world where the richest 1% have hidden their wealth, they are bound to strike at you. This is only the most obvious shot they've fired. I honestly wonder about the ones that haven't been brought to light yet.

Perhaps bribing a certain Swedish official...
 
Like (0 likes)
Julia Gillard is kind of annoying, eh?
 
Like (0 likes)
 
Post Reply
 
 
Powered By Hoop.la