WikiLeaks

Lamplighter;697202 wrote:

I'm impressed by this guy...
He seems to have a lot of experience and understands the benefits to what he is doing.
The last 3 or 4 pages of the interview are quite revealing, and I liked his final statement: "courage is contagious"

But that still leaves the Lincoln question of how to stop the likes of Mr. Assange? If he were exposing Chinese or Russian secrets, he would already have died at the hands of some unknown assailant. As a foreigner (Australian citizen) engaged in hostile acts against the U.S., Mr. Assange is certainly not protected from U.S. reprisal under the laws of war. Perhaps Lincoln would have considered him an "enemy combatant."

In his Saturday letter urging Mr. Assange to cease and desist, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh accused the WikiLeaker of breaking U.S. law without mentioning a particular statute. Perhaps Mr. Koh meant the 1917 Espionage Act, a vague statute which has rarely been used to punish leakers, and never against a publisher. As recently as 2009, the government dropped an Espionage Act prosecution against two lobbyists for AIPAC, the American-Israel lobby, after a rebuke by a federal appeals court.

Mr. Assange is clearly trying to protect himself from such an indictment by inviting the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel to be his co-publishers. Newspapers used to understand that the right of the First Amendment implied some publishing self-restraint. But as publishers ourselves, we nonetheless worry that indicting a bad actor like Mr. Assange under an ambiguous statute would set a precedent that could later be used against journalists.

Lamplighter;697210 wrote:

Yes. Just as I believe it takes an informed public to keep a democracy.

The vast majority of the "damage" done by whistle-blowers and leakers
has only been embarrassment or exposure of illegality.
As he says, those who want to keep secrets are the ones who set the penalties,
and some of those penalties are severe.
It takes a lot of courage to act in the face of those penalties.

Lamplighter;697220 wrote:

So you wish to label every whistle-blower and leak as "treason" ?

How many such events have resulted in the person actually
being tried and actually being convicted of "treason" ?

If a leak of a policy or action causes embarrassment to the country,
get rid of the official that set that policy and change the policy
If the policy is illegal, change the policy, don't classify it as "national security".

Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they "could do serious damage to national security?" Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to "quickly" confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life? And why would he choose to confess over the Internet, in an unsecured, international AOL IM chat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled? These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught.

Lamplighter;697232 wrote:

Yes, I've heard they have a soldier under arrest and he will probably be tried.

Not everything is treason, but it's a label that gets thrown about.
That is, the "embarrassed party" views everything in worst possible case scenario (to them self).

But keep in mind there's a difference between public exposure and giving "secrets" to an enemy.
As discussed in the interview, once both sides know a "secret" it loses it's importance to both sides.

Lamplighter;697244 wrote:

Sky, I'd say yes to copying and whistle-blowing if what a company is doing is illegal.
I doubt many wrong-doers will publicize their own wrong-doings.

There is a need for classified information and blunt foreign policies but the problem, as always, is where is line drawn in the sea of gray.

Lamplighter;697232 wrote:

Yes, I've heard they have a soldier under arrest and he will probably be tried.

Not everything is treason, but it's a label that gets thrown about.

That is, the "embarrassed party" views everything in worst possible case scenario (to them self).

But keep in mind there's a difference between public exposure and giving "secrets" to an enemy.
As discussed in the interview, once both sides know a "secret" it loses it's importance to both sides.

Lamplighter;697251 wrote:

Classic, I doubt seriously the State Dept will not be able to negotiate with others.

One of the talking heads on TV reported that the response of former State Dept diplomats was not about the embarrassment or trust, but the perception that diplomats were acting as spies.

But so far Wikileaks is not about Hillary

Lamplighter;697251 wrote:

Classic, I doubt seriously the State Dept will not be able to negotiate with others.

One of the talking heads on TV reported that the response of former State Dept diplomats
was not about the embarrassment or trust, but the perception that diplomats were acting as spies.

If that's the policy (i.e., to spy), then change the policy.
I'm surprised Hillary didn't know better than to perpetuate Condy's policy.

Lamplighter;697202 wrote:

I'm impressed by this guy...
He seems to have a lot of experience and understands the benefits to what he is doing.
The last 3 or 4 pages of the interview are quite revealing, and I liked his final statement: "courage is contagious"

Assange, whose whereabouts are unknown, is wanted by Sweden internationally concerning allegations against him that include rape and sexual molestation.

Lamplighter;697278 wrote:

Classic, see post # 14

But that's really not the main point.
The new media have been talking about leaks of State Dept materials, and the "spying" issue has been a major sub-topic.

The policy/directive to carry out the "spying" was a policy initiated by Sec of State Rice, and more recently continued by Sec of State Clinton.

Lamplighter;697278 wrote:

Classic, see post # 14

The policy/directive to carry out the "spying" was a policy initiated by Sec of State Rice, and more recently continued by Sec of State Clinton.

classicman wrote:

How many of those diplomats are going to be able to talk to other countries when they are now perceived as spies?

The site appears to have responded by switching its main hosting base from Sweden to the U.S., making it available again.

Lamplighter;697291 wrote:

Merc , I'm impressed by what the man has to say about his role in Wikileaks in the interview you posted.
I'm seeing him pretty much as a news reporter, and seems to have a lot of integrity about his role and sources.

Ad hominem attacks don't go very far for me, particularly
when it's alleged sexual misconduct that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

classicman;697294 wrote:

From Merc's link...

Does that bring them/him under US jurisdiction now?

TheMercenary;697295 wrote:

It is not an ad hominem attack. It is a fact the guy is wanted for questioning in a rape. It speaks to his charater. Or at least it should be suspect.

Stormieweather;697325 wrote:

No. It shouldn't say anything about his character unless he is found guilty of the crime. I could accuse YOU or anyone of anything...and it should not speak to your character...until solid facts are brought forth to support my accusation.

At least that's the way it's supposed to work in the US justice system. Innocent until proven guilty...blah blah blah.

Julian Assange, the Australian founder of Wikileaks, has said he has been warned
by "inside sources in the White House" not to return to the US as he could be arrested.

The 39 year-old told journalists at the Frontline Club last night that US government insiders
had informed him about discussions to charge him as a co-conspirator to espionage.

The discussions were later dropped.

Brianna;697329 wrote:

I was wondering . . . I would think making the US look stupid would make her, literally, swoon with glee.

Urbane Guerrilla;697328 wrote:

National Review

Aliantha, Zen: could you two inform Mr. Assange what an article of incestuous personnel he's being? He might believe it more if it's coming from two Australians. He's got too much of a desire to smirch and impair the hope of the world. He's making Australians look bad. He does not seem to grasp that.

Brianna;697329 wrote:

the shit he is doing is right up her line of liberal blahblahblah. I would think making the US look stupid would make her, literally, swoon with glee.

New York, Dec 1: The whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
urged the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to resign the post.

During an interview with Time magazine on Tuesday, Nov 30, Julian Assange asked Hillary to resign
for ordering US officials to spy on United Nations leadership.

"She should resign, if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering US diplomatic figures
to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which
the US has signed up.
Yes, she should resign over that," Assange said.

Urbane Guerrilla;697328 wrote:

National Review

Aliantha, Zen: could you two inform Mr. Assange what an article of incestuous personnel he's being? He might believe it more if it's coming from two Australians. He's got too much of a desire to smirch and impair the hope of the world. He's making Australians look bad. He does not seem to grasp that.

Brianna;697329 wrote:

I was wondering why Ali hadn't jumped to Mr. Assange's defense - the shit he is doing is right up her line of liberal blahblahblah but she is AWOL it seems. I would think making the US look stupid would make her, literally, swoon with glee. but, since merc is having none of it, perhaps she's just making herself scarce.

Urbane Guerrilla;697359 wrote:

Hmm. I don't get that off of Ali. While she prefers Oz to all other lands of her experience, what of that? It is unremarkable -- many Americans who have experience of Australia can certainly understand why she might. At its worst Oz may be a tetch flyblown and has some very unsympathetic reptiles here and there (some of them hanging around in the boozers going from twolegged to legless), but it's no pesthole.

TheMercenary;697363 wrote:

I don't think he is making Australians look bad any more than Bush makes all Americans look bad. But I would be interested in what their government thinks about it and if they would have any suggestions on how to stop him.

classicman;697403 wrote:

Complete and Utter Bullshit. :lame:

xoxoxoBruce;697471 wrote:

Or espionage? I think the treason was referring to the soldier that stole the information, and treasonous for the act. At least that's the way I read it, but journalists and bloggers have been throwing so much shit around it's hard to tell who said what.

Brianna;697329 wrote:

I was wondering why Ali hadn't jumped to Mr. Assange's defense - the shit he is doing is right up her line of liberal blahblahblah but she is AWOL it seems. I would think making the US look stupid would make her, literally, swoon with glee. but, since merc is having none of it, perhaps she's just making herself scarce.

DanaC;697500 wrote:

I don't see why Ali's been dragged into this tbh.

Brianna;697485 wrote:

funny how old sweetie pie pants showed up just when she did...weird.

DanaC;697500 wrote:

I don't see why Ali's been dragged into this tbh.

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.

Shawnee123;697521 wrote:

No, see, that doesn't work: Henry showed up not because of some miraculous email notification system or ESP. He came around when I told him what an ass you are. He just couldn't help himself.

(You know WAY better, you just like to pretend and cry.)

Stormieweather;697522 wrote:

I personally believe that the only way to minimize corruption and civil rights violations is to have a way for the truth to be told. I do not agree with hiding or suppressing facts. The truth has nothing to fear.
Yes, I'm aware that this position will be unpopular here. Please keep your guns holstered.

piercehawkeye45;697558 wrote:

It's just like a personal relationship. While open communication is preferred and best in most cases, there are just some things that are best kept to oneself for the relationship's sake.

xoxoxoBruce;697564 wrote:

The more I read, and correlate it my head, the more it seems my initial anger at this insult was disproportionate to the actual damage done.

Stormieweather;697571 wrote:

And....something useful may come of this:

Whistleblower Bill

One of the common themes that I heard from the time I was a senior agency official in the early 1980s in every military engagement we were in was the complaint of the lack of adequate intelligence support. That began to change with the Gulf War in 1991, but it really has changed dramatically after 9/11.

And clearly the finding that the lack of sharing of information had prevented people from, quote/unquote, "connecting the dots" led to much wider sharing of information, and I would say especially wider sharing of information at the front, so that no one at the front was denied -- in one of the theaters, Afghanistan or Iraq -- was denied any information that might possibly be helpful to them. Now, obviously, that aperture went too wide. There's no reason for a young officer at a forward operating post in Afghanistan to get cables having to do with the START negotiations. And so we've taken a number of mitigating steps in the department. I directed a number of these things to be undertaken in August.

skysidhe;697499 wrote:

Leads me to think they don't see individuals, but a whole cast of people not up to their level.

Big Sarge;697690 wrote:

In other words, they are in very deep shit.

Cables Discuss Vast Hacking by a China That Fears the Web
As China ratcheted up the pressure on Google to censor its Internet searches last year, the American Embassy sent a secret cable to Washington detailing one reason top Chinese leaders had become so obsessed with the Internet search company: they were Googling themselves. ...
Yet despite the hints of paranoia that appear in some cables, there are also clear signs that Chinese leaders do not consider the Internet an unstoppable force for openness and democracy, as some Americans believe.

In fact, this spring, around the time of the Google pullout, China’s State Council Information Office delivered a triumphant report to the leadership on its work to regulate traffic online, according to a crucial Chinese contact cited by the State Department in a cable in early 2010, ...
At least one previously unreported attack in 2008, code-named Byzantine Candor by American investigators, yielded more than 50 megabytes of e-mail messages and a complete list of user names and passwords from an American government agency, a Nov. 3, 2008, cable revealed for the first time.

... “A well-placed contact claims that the Chinese government coordinated the recent intrusions of Google systems. According to our contact, the closely held operations were directed at the Politburo Standing Committee level.” ...

For example, in 2008 Chinese intruders based in Shanghai and linked to the People’s Liberation Army used a computer document labeled “salary increase — survey and forecast” as bait as part of the sophisticated intrusion scheme that yielded more than 50 megabytes of electronic mail messages and a complete list of user names and passwords from a United States government agency that was not identified.

The cables indicate that the American government has been fighting a pitched battle with intruders who have been clearly identified as using Chinese-language keyboards and physically located in China. In most cases the intruders took great pains to conceal their identities, but occasionally they let their guard down. In one case described in the documents, investigators tracked one of the intruders who was surfing the Web in Taiwan “for personal use.”

From WikiLemons, Clinton Tries to Make Lemonade
Whatever damage the leaks may do, and nobody doubts it could be substantial, they have showcased the many roles of the Foreign Service officer in the field: part intelligence analyst, part schmoozer, part spy - and to judge by these often artful cables, part foreign correspondent.

Big Sarge;697878 wrote:

The soldier has access to the data via SIPR, just like any other analyst. SIPR only in a secured internet for documents/media with a SECRET or less classification. This soldier has a TS/SCI clearance requiring an in depth background check that most of the public can never pass. After getting the clearance, he is then "read-on" for access. None of this is taken lightly.

Large amounts of classified materials are posted on SIPR in order to facilitate analysis. It is the junior enlisted analyst who is tasked with datamining & preliminary link analysis or trend identification.

TheMercenary;698626 wrote:

It is not a game.

WikiLeaks is one of those stories where the passions of the moment blind us
to what may eventually be seen as the more important lessons.

To be sure, there are embarrassing revelations in the thousands of cables, often raw files.
Arab governments are urging the United States to strike Iran;
the United States and South Korea are gaming China’s reaction to a collapse of North Korea;
the portraits of heads of state aren’t flattering.

This no doubt will complicate some relations as well as American diplomacy for a while.
Despots probably will go out of their way to distance themselves publicly.
Still, rather than exposing ineptitude, a reading of a fair portion of the documents suggests
that they actually reflect well on U.S. policy and diplomacy.<snip>

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who suggested that while the cables were “awkward” and “embarrassing,”
the consequences for U.S. foreign policy are “fairly modest.”

It is worth considering this when measuring the cries to lynch Mr. Assange.
Mike Huckabee, a Republican presidential hopeful, wants him executed;
others want to lock him up at Guantánamo Bay.
His actions may be offensive;
it’s not clear they’re prosecutable under the almost century-old Espionage Act.

glatt;698631 wrote:

No. It's not.

The reaction from the government is pretty harsh. They have been threatening everyone with a link to Wikileaks. Just off the top of my head, there's Amazon, Paypal, and some domain registration company. I wonder exactly what was said by the government to those companies to get them to pull the plug on Wikileaks so damn fast.

Also reports that the state department is telling at least Columbia University students and Boston University students that if they read any of the Wikileaks materials, they won't be hired in the government. And also Federal government workers being told they could be fired if they read the materials too.

I can understand the US Government trying to crack down on this, but the cat is out of the bag. Threatening people who simply read the secrets is ridiculous. You can't turn on the tv or pick up the paper without seeing a story on one of the released cables.

Lamplighter;698635 wrote:

But once those documents were distributed, there seems to be a consensus developing that
Wikileaks and the news media acted responsibly in the publication of only selected documents,
and little actual damage was done... so far only (justifiable ?) embarrassment.

We know for a fact that he put lives of individuals in harms way with the first release.

John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a public policy organization focused on national security, says,
“If you can get a credit card, you can get a ‘secret’ clearance.”

Lamplighter;698648 wrote:

@ Merc

During the TV interview, Assange said Wikipedia staff reviewed the documents and
Wikipedia did not distribute any that were above the "Secret" level of security.

“If you can get a credit card, you can get a ‘secret’ clearance.”

The list was compiled as part of what is described by the cable as the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) created by the US Department of Homeland Security to manage the protection of critical infrastructure under one US body.

Importantly, none of the targets gathered by the the State Department were under the control or management of any US agency and the cable explicitly ordered personnel not to seek host countries' assistance in identifying critical infrastructure targets.

According to the leaked cable, under the NIPP, targets from 18 different sectors were ordered to be located, namely in the areas of agriculture and food; defense industrial base; energy; healthcare and public health; national monuments and icons; banking and finance; drinking water and water treatment systems; chemical; commercial facilities; dams; emergency services; commercial nuclear reactors, materials, and waste; information technology; communications; postal and shipping; transportation and systems; government facilities; and critical manufacturing.

Among the sites listed in the cable are the Straits of Hormuz, which bridge the Persian Gulf and was the site of Iraq and Iran's Tanker War in the 1980s that triggered a spike in the price of oil, and a Haifa weapons development facility belonging to Israeli company Rafael. Outside the Middle East, the diverse list of targets covers everything from mines in Africa to vaccine facilities in France and undersea communication cables in Australia and China.

Site maintained by: John Pike - Page last modified: 28-04-2005 12:53:39 Zulu

Lamplighter wrote:

I suppose it's how you view such things,
but to me this looks just like what governments and businesses routinely do...
make catalog listings of things.

For example, just using Google I could have made a list that included
the Straits of Hormuz, , mines in Africa,
vaccine facilities in France, and undersea cables .

Here is something about a weapons factory in Haifa (via Google);
however, I don't know if this link is part of the Wikileaks or if it has been up for a while.
I think the latter because at the bottom it reads

TheMercenary;698641 wrote:

We know for a fact that he put lives of individuals in harms way with the first release.

BERLIN — American officials exerted sustained pressure on Germany not to enforce arrest warrants
against Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in the 2003 kidnapping of a German citizen
mistakenly believed to be a terrorist, diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks show.

Mr. Masri was seized on Dec. 31, 2003, as he entered Macedonia while on vacation;
border security guards confused him with an operative of Al Qaeda with a similar name.
He says he was turned over to the C.I.A., which flew him to Afghanistan,
where he says he was tortured, sodomized and injected with drugs.
After five months, he was dropped on a roadside in Albania. No charges were brought against him.

Speaking on the Fox Business show "Follow The Money" on Monday,
Bob Beckel excoriated Assange for leaking the State Department cables
that have roiled the world in the past week,
and said that American special forces should kill him.

"A dead man can't leak stuff," Beckel said.
"This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States.
And I'm not for the death penalty, so...
there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

The other guests on the program all agreed with Beckel.

Traditionally news organizations are usually protected, Wikileaks is not one of those.

Flint;699108 wrote:

What defines a news organization? More to the point, once the precedent of howWikileaks (whatever they are) is handled in this situation, how can that be made to NOT apply to news organizations? What is the clear, legal separation?

What about unaffiliated individuals who may see information on the internet and post a link to it somewhere else (such as this message board)? Are we protected from prosecution? Is Undertoad?

This is genuine curiosity on my part--I'm not asking because I think I already know the answer.

W.HI.P;699395 wrote:

I can't even read your comments.
Is brainwashing that effective?
Take a fucking step out of your little shells, and take a look at the bigger picture.

W.HI.P;699403 wrote:

I'm not referring to all comments here.
I saw a wikileaks thread here, so i got all excited, entered, to find comments against wikileaks, and against Assange.
What more is needed to be said on my behalf?
I'm not going to enter a debate about this.
No argument can be made against Assange and what he's doing.
I see the word Treason?
How retarded does someone have to be to use that word in this discussion?
So yeah, i'm not planning on having a debate with the mentally handicapped.

W.HI.P;699413 wrote:

Perhaps the man on trial is the most patriotic American alive?

Flint;699108 wrote:

What about unaffiliated individuals who may see information on the internet and post a link to it somewhere else (such as this message board)?

Flint;699680 wrote:

State Department Warns Students Not To Cite WikiLeaks On Facebook

The official warned students at his alma mater, the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, via an email from the school&#8217;s Office of Career Services on Tuesday.

Officials at Columbia have argued they are merely passing on relevant information, while [QUOTE]the State Department has denied any federal involvement in the school's guidance.

W.HI.P;699413 wrote:

Also.... Americans should focus a little bit on the motive behind this break of oath of the man on trial.
Would you not also be tempted to break your oath holding this kind of info?
Perhaps the man on trial is the most patriotic American alive?

piercehawkeye45;699745 wrote:

That is not the point. If you are going to break the law based on ideological disagreements you have to accept the consequences of your action. You can't let someone off the hook just because you personally agree with their intent.

piercehawkeye45;699749 wrote:

I did not find anything real surprising from wikileaks.

TheMercenary;699759 wrote:

Why would you support people who obtained stolen classified material from our country?

W.HI.P;699753 wrote:

Those who haven't truly looked are either well clouded by the media influence around the topic, or they're too afraid to look, as they face a demolishing of their core beliefs in their nation.

piercehawkeye45;699790 wrote:

Also, if you think that wikileaks has exposed a demolishing of core values I am very curious of what you consider American core values.

TheMercenary;699759 wrote:

Why would you support people who obtained stolen classified material from our country? Assange is an accessory to a crime and should be treated as such. Wikileaks is not a news organization and should not be afforded any such protections. I am quite happy to see him in jail, regardless of whether or not wikileaks continues to release stolen classified information. And I would fully support the arrest and detention of any person or persons who pass on such information to the general public.

skysidhe;699826 wrote:

What this government does in secret, you can bet other governments do too.

piercehawkeye45;699790 wrote:

I am very curious of what you consider American core values.

Stormieweather;699851 wrote:

That would be...oh, almost all of the current, mainstream "news" organizations.

W.HI.P;699863 wrote:

If people turned off their tv and did not read the newspaper, and just looked at the hard facts, they would not even be considering these things.

W.HI.P;699863 wrote:

If people turned off their tv and did not read the newspaper,[COLOR=DarkOrange][COLOR=Red]a[/COLOR][COLOR=Red]nd didn't log into the cellar[/COLOR][/COLOR], they would not even be considering these things.

W.HI.P;699861 wrote:

If you truly look at the documents that have passed, and those that are on their way, you'll see that no other government has done quite the same.

W.HI.P;699793 wrote:

I'm not even gonna respond to the first part of your post, its pretty low.

piercehawkeye45;699910 wrote:

It's pretty low but you just responded by telling us what, in your personal perspective, Americans think and then how you "know" better. Then on later posts you drop the term brainwashing, which is rarely used by someone with an unbiased opinion.

W.HI.P;699925 wrote:

I'm not dropping anything.
Brainwashing is what is going on American television sets.
If you fail to see it, i feel very sorry for you.

tw;699766 wrote:

Why do you conventiently [sic] forget those who intentionally outted [sic] Valerie Plame only for a political agenda? That was far worse than what Wikileaks is doing.

Bullitt;699951 wrote:

Why are you complaining about tv news, when a vast majority of non-local news consumption is through the internet now? The public has vast resources available through the internet and can get a wide variety of viewpoints and reporting on the same subject. CNN has "ireports" where private individuals do their own reporting and upload it to the website for example. This is completely independent from the corporate CNN structure that determines what is presented every day.

CNN even showcases every now and then articles from a news organization called VBS.TV, which you should check out sometime. They do very good independent reporting on a wide variety of topics from Pakistan weapons manufacturing to wildfires in Oregon. And that's just CNN.com. Point being, the American people have at their fingertips a much broader and multi-faceted wealth of information about the world than you seem to think, since you're so stuck on this tv news brainwashing thing.

Brianna;699867 wrote:

this is what happened:

Philip Larkin - This Be The Verse

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

some of us get over it by living life and some of us do NOT get over it. I was bitter and angry and republican for a good while. Then I lived a bit. I saw the need for compasion. those who say work harder! have never been in need =- in true need, in need of human kindness.

Someday, though, they will be in need.

May goddess bless them.

W.HI.P;699944 wrote:

Kinda like the students protesting in London the other day.
The issue escaped everyone as the news read.
"Attack on the Royal family"

^^^^^THIS^^^^^
is brainwashing.
Cleaning the mind of the true issue

Like the G-20 Summit in Toronto that occurred.
Tens of thousands of people went to protest.
Do you think maybe they had a reason?
Well, nobody watching the TV found out, cause the news did not broadcast why.
You think maybe giving a reason why tens of thousands of people gathered to protest might be newsworthy?
No no no no, you gotta set up a stage for distraction, so they gave the News something to talk about, to alter the perception.
Of course the protesters are the bad guys.
Tens of thousands of people gathered so they can burn a police car.

You see, ^^^^THAT^^^^ is brainwashing

W.HI.P;699925 wrote:

I'm not dropping anything.
Brainwashing is what is going on American television sets.
If you fail to see it, i feel very sorry for you.

piercehawkeye45;699985 wrote:

I will admit, and I'm sure every American on this board will agree with me to some point, that US news is not ideal in any way and that it gets extremely annoying how they care more about appealing to viewers/readers instead of getting the raw truth. But this is not brainwashing. While political agendas do have a role in news, they do not control it. There is no conspiracy where the US government is trying to tell us where to think. It is in their interests to keep us within a certain threshold, yes, but it is not worth it for them to try too hard.

If you want to see brainwashing look at North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Burma, Arab countries, etc. This is a lack of free speech. US news has its problems but it is not brainwashing unless you choose a different definition and then we are arguing semantics.

Undertoad;700014 wrote:

After all this brainwashing to create a uniform point of view, we seem to still have one of the most diverse nations in the world.

In fact, right now, everybody is at everybody else's throats for their differing beliefs.

If you go to any US political forum you will find nothing but people who are angry at what news is being consumed that they don't agree with.

Entire organizations are dedicated to pointing out falsehoods and laughable bias on the other side.

TheMercenary;700030 wrote:

The biggest person who thinks all us Americans are brainwashed is obviously brainwashed to think that way by the radical liberal left of Canada.

It's tempting to think of Julian Assange as an enigmatic international criminal mastermind. Romantic, even. And he certainly cultivates that image himself, with the wild hair and the comedy sunglasses. But Assange is no mastermind: his vanity, his hubris and his insatiable desire to see the world burn have led him to make a fatal, final error. As a result, the Wikileaks project is doomed.

At the tail-end of last month, Assange indicated to a journalist that he had information about a major US bank that would cause a scandal to rival Enron. That was a catastrophic misjudgment. Because now, one by one, every financial institution connected to Assange is severing his ability to finance Wikileaks. Each is giving very slightly different reasons - usually connected to terms of service and "illegal activity" - but all of their motivations are the same: in the middle of a recession, it would be disastrous to their own businesses should Assange attempt to take out a major bank.

Undertoad;700274 wrote:

Rather, if you use Sweden for its liberal laws on secrecy you are not going to be able to avoid its liberal laws on what constitutes rape.

"To be accused of a sex crime in Sweden is considered very serious. Swedish courts tend to believe what the woman says."

What evidence will the UK take into account?
Will it consider the defence claims that the accusations
against Mr Assange are politically motivated?

Yes. Under Section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003 a person's extradition
is barred if there is evidence to prove that the warrant,
though purporting to be issued on account of the alleged sexual offences,
is in fact issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing
Mr Assange on account of his political opinions.

Flint;700363 wrote:

xkcd does Wikileaks

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will move from a prison cell in Wandsworth
to a country retreat in Norfolk when he is released from custody.
Ellingham Hall is a 10-bedroomed property set on 600 acres of land near Bungay on the Norfolk-Suffolk border.
The estate is owned by Vaughan Smith, a Wikileaks supporter who served in the British Army
before founding London's Frontline journalists' club.
Mr Assange must stay there as part of his bail conditions,
granted on Thursday by Mr Justice Ouseley at the Royal Courts of Justice.

skysidhe;700420 wrote:

A charming English cottage would do. The rates per week seem reasonable.

Sundae Girl;700417 wrote:

Can someone bail me out of my parents' house so I can stay there too?
No incredibly subtle biting satire intended - I'd just like a break in a 10 bedroomed house in Norfolk to watch the snow come down.

glatt;700423 wrote:

It looks drafty and cold there.

Griff;700900 wrote:

I would suggest that way too much content is classified as shown by the hum drum nature of the bulk of the leaks.

TheMercenary;700903 wrote:

I would agree. But it is not the job of the these criminals to make such determinations. Often the most innocuous bits of information pieced together gives the clear picture. By leaving out various bits your enemy can never get a clear picture about what you know or what you think. This is not the role of some fools who think they know better. So we are stuck with what we have at this point. If we need to make changes from this point forward, so be it. We can make changes.

Griff;700908 wrote:

Most of our enemies are make believe...

Shawnee123;700904 wrote:

I just realized Assange looks like Neil Patrick Harris. I keep expecting him to say: these leaks, they will be LEGEND....wait for it...ARY.

Griff;700917 wrote:

Sure, IMHO countries like Iran and North Korea would love to break the US but lack the ability to project power in any serious way and can be contained diplomatically. The threat of radical Islam is enhanced by our lack of openness and our willingness to compromise values when dealing with Middle-Eastern regimes. China could be a real economic threat but those pirates have lashed their ship to ours so we'll go down together.

Iran and North Korea would love to break the US but lack the ability to project power in any serious way and can be contained diplomatically...

TheMercenary;700920 wrote:

You think we should give these states more information about our intelligence or access to our diplomatic cables?

Griff;700930 wrote:

The threat of exposed cables is problematic but could lead to rhetoric matching action in international relations allowing the US to lead by example instead of despite example. Had WikiLeaks been in place back in the yellowcake time-frame we could have avoided supplying manpower to AQ for the last several years. What to do with Saddam would continue to be an issue but we would have had to deal with it honestly and openly.

TheMercenary;700933 wrote:

On a lighter note:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-cuba-banned-sicko

Sundae Girl;700417 wrote:

Can someone bail me out of my parents' house so I can stay there too?

TheMercenary;700932 wrote:

I see "honestly and openly" as differing categories of diplomatic national policy. You can deal with nations honestly but you don't need to share every single bit of information with them to do it. There is a lot of information that people just don't need to know IMHO.

Spexxvet;701096 wrote:

Just leak something. No, I'm not into golden showers.

W.HI.P;701128 wrote:

The #1 enemy of the American people, is their own government.
Whether the closed minded, ignorant, proud American's are aware of this yet, or not.

W.HI.P;701128 wrote:

The #1 enemy of the American people, is their own government.
Whether the closed minded, ignorant, proud American's are aware of this yet, or not.

xoxoxoBruce;701163 wrote:

Right, almost as bad as Pompous Canadians.

Griff;700930 wrote:

The threat of exposed cables is problematic but could lead to rhetoric matching action in international relations allowing the US to lead by example instead of despite example. Had WikiLeaks been in place back in the yellowcake time-frame we could have avoided supplying manpower to AQ for the last several years. What to do with Saddam would continue to be an issue but we would have had to deal with it honestly and openly.

Stormieweather;701038 wrote:

According to the Sicko filmmaker, Michael Moore, that "ban" story was made up by American diplomats.

Not banned

Griff;700930 wrote:

Had WikiLeaks been in place back in the yellowcake time-frame we could have avoided supplying manpower to AQ for the last several years.

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Assange attacks former friends and US
Says rape accusers motivated by revenge
Claims to have material to destroy bank boss
Police feared he would be assassinated
JULIAN Assange, the man behind WikiLeaks, today launched a wide ranging series of attacks on both his enemies and allies as he defended his public and private conduct.
In his first UK newspaper interview since releasing hundreds of secret diplomatic cables last month, Mr Assange told The Times he predicts the US will face reprisals if it attempts to extradite him on conspiracy charges.

He accused his media partners at The Guardian newspaper, which worked with him to make the embarrassing leaks public, of unfairly tarnishing him by revealing damaging details of the sex assault allegations he faces in Sweden.

WikiLeaks cable dump reveals flaws of State Department's information-sharing tool

Net-Centric Diplomacy was launched in 2006 and tied into a giant Defense Department system known as the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRnet. Soon, nearly half a million government employees and contractors with security clearances could tap into the diplomatic cables from computer terminals around the globe.

<snip>
it was nearly midnight at Bank of America’s headquarters in Charlotte, N.C.,
but the bank’s counterespionage work was only just beginning.

A day earlier, on Nov. 29, the director of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange,
said in an interview that he intended to “take down” a major American bank and
reveal an “ecosystem of corruption” with a cache of data from an executive’s hard drive.

With Bank of America’s share price falling on the widely held suspicion that the hard drive was theirs,
the executives on the call concluded it was time to take action.

Since then, a team of 15 to 20 top Bank of America officials, led by the chief risk officer,
Bruce R. Thompson, has been overseeing a broad internal investigation
— scouring thousands of documents in the event that they become public,
reviewing every case where a computer has gone missing and hunting for any sign
that its systems might have been compromised.

“This is a significant moment, and Bank of America has to get out in front of it,”
said Richard S. Levick, a veteran crisis communications expert.
“Corporate America needs to look at what happens here, and how Bank of America handles it.”

Last month, the bank bought up Web addresses that could prove embarrassing to the company
or its top executives in the event of a large-scale public assault,
but a spokesman for the bank said the move was unrelated to any possible leak.

[QUOTE]

HAMMAMET, Tunisia &#8212; This ancient Mediterranean hamlet, advertised as the Tunisian St.-Tropez, has long been the favorite summer getaway of President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and his large extended family, many of whom have built vast beachfront mansions here with the wealth they have amassed during his years in power.

But their new and conspicuous riches, partly exposed in a detailed cable by the American ambassador and made public by WikiLeaks, have fueled an extraordinary extended uprising by Tunisians who blame corruption among the elite for the joblessness afflicting their country.

Stormieweather;703114 wrote:

Live so that you never mind having the corners of your existence illuminated.

King wrote to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Wednesday asking him to add WikiLeaks and Assange to a list banning U.S. companies from conducting business with them.

"The U.S. government simply cannot continue its ineffective piecemeal approach of responding in the aftermath of Wikileaks&#8217; damage. The Administration must act to disrupt the Wikileaks enterprise," King said.

"The U.S. government should be making every effort to strangle the viability of Assange&#8217;s organization.&#8221;

Several payment processing firms including Paypal, Visa and Mastercard have already cut off their business relationships with the site, reportedly due to pressure from U.S. officials. Those sites were targeted by the hacker group Anonymous in a series of retributive attacks dubbed "Operation Payback."

Assange appeared to offer a threat to King in his statement.

"WikiLeaks has 'terrorized' politicians from Kenya to Kansas over the last four years. Quite a few have lost office as a result," Assange said. "That doesn&#8217;t mean we are 'terrorists'&#8212;it means we doing our job. We intend to 'terrorize' Peter King, Hillary Clinton, corrupt CEOs and all the rest for many years to come, because that is what the people of the world demand."

TheMercenary;705610 wrote:

This confirms they are an internet terrorist organization...

TheMercenary;705608 wrote:

So you don't support a right to privacy?

Stormieweather;706639 wrote:

And yet, they continually fail to do so.

OnyxCougar;709192 wrote:

Can I quietly point out that Manning has been in jail for about 8 months in solitary confinement and as yet, hasn't even gone to trial?

Can I also point out (again) that Assange is not an American citizen and therefore cannot be held accountable to American law, especially when he's not in America?

Also, I'd like to add that all of the people that are screaming for his assassination (which is illegal) should be investigated and possibly even charged with a crime? Isn't it illegal to actively, publically seek the murder of another person? At the worst, isn't that a hate crime?

OnyxCougar;709192 wrote:

Also, I'd like to add that all of the people that are screaming for his assassination (which is illegal) should be investigated and possibly even charged with a crime? Isn't it illegal to actively, publically seek the murder of another person? At the worst, isn't that a hate crime?

Bullitt;709675 wrote:

Stating you think someone should be killed, and actually plotting such a thing, are two very different things. Stating it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Not a hate crime. See Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Or the KKK. Sorry. Hate is ugly, but it's the other side of the free speech coin.

Spexxvet;709709 wrote:

Is the fatwa requiring Salman Rushdie's execution protected?

wikipedia salman rushdie page wrote:

Hardliners in Iran have continued to reaffirm the death sentence. In early 2005, Khomeini's fatw&#257; was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Additionally, the Revolutionary Guards have declared that the death sentence on him is still valid. Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatw&#257; on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it, and the person who issued it &#8211; Ayatollah Khomeini &#8211; has been dead since 1989.

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain&#8217;s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

BigV;710382 wrote:

Hey mercy...

do you think the arms control treaty signed with Russia was a good idea?

classicman;697203 wrote:

So Lamp - you think what he is doing is a good thing?

Why? Because crimes carried out that serve the Government's agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged; cyber-attacks are "crimes" only when undertaken by those whom the Government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the Government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them. Whoever launched those cyber attacks at WikiLeaks (whether government or private actors) had no more legal right to do so than Anonymous, but only the latter will be prosecuted.

That's the same dynamic that causes the Obama administration to be obsessed with prosecuting WikiLeaks but not The New York Times or Bob Woodward, even though the latter have published far more sensitive government secrets; WikiLeaks is adverse to the government while the NYT and Woodward aren't, and thus "law" applies to punish only the former. The same mindset drives the Government to shield high-level political officials who commit the most serious crimes, while relentlessly pursuing whistle-blowers who expose their wrongdoing. Those with proximity to government power and who serve and/or control it are free from the constraints of law; those who threaten or subvert it have the full weight of law come crashing down upon them.

OnyxCougar;711364 wrote:

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

TheMercenary;711508 wrote:

That's not how it works in the military. He knew what he signed up for when he signed his paperwork to gain the security clearance. The documents are clear and the punishments are spelled out on paper. He would not be there if they did not have a rock solid case. Whistle Blower Acts do not apply.

Uday;711608 wrote:

So no trial for Manning? He is just to rot in the cell forever?

Uday;711608 wrote:

So no trial for Manning? He is just to rot in the cell forever?

tw;711445 wrote:

Guantanamo. Secret Prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Patriot Act. Suspending Habeas Corpus. Abu Ghriad. Do any of these extremist approved actions form a pattern?

800 imprisoned in Guantanamo. Well over 600 were innocent. Sorry? Nope. They did not even get an apology.

Extremism says that was (and is) acceptable. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either.

Bullitt;709675 wrote:

Stating you think someone should be killed, and actually plotting such a thing, are two very different things. Stating it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Not a hate crime. See Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Or the KKK. Sorry. Hate is ugly, but it's the other side of the free speech coin.

Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
could have an impact on extradition cases throughout Latin America.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Ecuador has called for every acronym in the hemisphere (OAS, UNASUR, ALBA, UN, etc.)
to hold immediate meetings regarding the Julian Assange asylum case and the issue of its embassy in the UK.[/COLOR]

Leaving aside the specifics of that case for a moment, one of the secondary consequences
of this event is that it could bring up questions about a whole host of other recent
high profile political asylum, embassy refuge, and extradition cases around the hemisphere
that have occasionally impacted bilateral relations.

[Several cases around the world are listed]<snip>

In every instance, you'll hear, "But this case is different because...."
Yes, yes, every asylum case is different. Yet, there are similarities.
In every case, one side claims there have been various crimes committed
that must be prosecuted while the other claims political persecution.
Balancing justice for crimes against potential abuse of power by governments is tough.
Sure, we all think we know it when we see it when it comes to asylum cases,
but many people disagree about the cases listed above and others.

Lamplighter;871814 wrote:

It's announced today that Pvt Bradley Manning is...

... The Biggy... Aiding the Enemy (maximum sentence: Life): NOT GUILTY

An Army judge finds Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of
aiding the enemy by disclosing secret U.S. government documents.

...was found not guilty. That does not mean, say, or imply he is innocent.

... In a real world, not guilty does not mean innocent. ...

... Not guilty does not and never meant innocent. ...

...was found not guilty. That does not mean, say, or imply he is innocent.

... In a real world, not guilty does not mean innocent. ...

... Not guilty does not and never meant innocent. ...

(Reuters) - A U.S. military judge reduced potential prison time
for Private First Class Bradley Manning [COLOR="DarkRed"]to 90 years from 136 years[/COLOR]
on Tuesday by ruling that some sentences for leaking secret files
to WikiLeaks should be merged.
<snip>
Lind ruled during preliminary hearings that the sentence would be
[COLOR="DarkRed"]trimmed by 112 days[/COLOR] because Manning was mistreated
following his arrest in Iraq in May 2010.

I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what&#8217;s going on &#8212; the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.
What&#8217;s going to happen now? We&#8217;ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

<snip>The email service reportedly used by surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden
abruptly shut down on Thursday after its owner cryptically announced his refusal to become
"complicit in crimes against the American people."

Lavabit, an email service that boasted of its security features and claimed 350,000 customers,
is no more, apparently after rejecting a court order for cooperation with the US government
to participate in surveillance on its customers.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]It is the first such company known to have shuttered
rather than comply with government surveillance.
[/COLOR]
Silent Circle, another provider of secure online services, announced on
later Thursday night that it would scrap its own encrypted email offering, Silent Mail.<snip>
Silent Circle said in a blogpost that although it had not received
any government orders to hand over information, "the writing is on the wall".

The founder of Lavabait, Ladar Levison, wrote on the company's website:
"I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes
against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work
by shutting down Lavabit."

The news was first reported by Xeni Jardin the popular news site Boing Boing.<snip>

Undertoad;872854 wrote:

This could be bigger than Snowden himself, because this is where it goes to courts, where the rubber hits the road.

Griff;872883 wrote:

The year is 2013. This is the Obama Administration.

regular.joe;872898 wrote:

The guys working in these professions, on the whole, are patriots doing their level best to provide offensive/defensive capabilities for us all.

Big Sarge;874013 wrote:

... My issue with Manning is he betrayed his country and shouldn't be rewarded

Big Sarge;874013 wrote:

My issue with Manning is he betrayed his country and shouldn't be rewarded

They should not have security clearances that allow them access to all of the country's most important secret communications.

Undertoad;874150 wrote:

... They will be highly emotional and sometimes irrational. And while one should have compassion for people facing a... ridiculously complicated and personal matter, challenging their deepest personal psychological condition...

~They should not have security clearances that allow them access to all of the country's most important secret communications.~ ...

Undertoad;874150 wrote:

... the Army never should have put Bradley Manning in that position. They knew he was a troubled person. They apparently didn't care. ...

Undertoad;874150 wrote:

... The US Army did this. Or rather, did nothing. ...

Undertoad;874181 wrote:

I'm sure I don't understand your objection.

Manning thought of himself as honorable, even heroic
&#8212;&#8220;I guess I&#8217;m too idealistic,&#8221; he said. &#8220;i want people to see the truth
&#8230; regardless of who they are &#8230; because without information,
you cannot make informed decisions as a public.&#8221;

Over time, the pressures took a toll. At Fort Drum, Manning was losing control, lashing out at his tormentors. He had trouble with roommates, screamed at superior officers, his fists in balls. His master sergeant wasn&#8217;t sure he was mentally fit to deploy to Iraq, fearing he could do harm to himself or others. By August 2009, the month of Manning&#8217;s last chats with ZJ, he&#8217;d been referred to an Army mental-health counselor. Even online, his bravado slipped away. On August 7, 2009, almost six months after he first reached out to ZJ, he popped up on her screen. It was 11:30 p.m., a Friday night at Fort Drum. &#8220;i don&#8217;t mean to sound over*dramatic, but im quite lonely,&#8221; he told her.

Manning thought of himself as honorable, even heroic
—“I guess I’m too idealistic,” he said. “i want people to see the truth
… regardless of who they are … because without information,
you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

xoxoxoBruce;874495 wrote:

Horseshit. If you see something wrong, you leak the evidence of that wrong to the press, so the American public will become aware of that wrong and pressure the politicians to fix it. You don't take hundreds of thousands of documents you haven't even read and give them to a foreign national.

Undertoad;874422 wrote:

... The Army knew she was troubled. If they had to overlook that because she was a T ...

Undertoad;874422 wrote:

... then we have bigger problems and a lot more troubled people are going to get 35 year sentences.

xoxoxoBruce;874495 wrote:

... If you see something wrong, you leak the evidence of that wrong to the press, so the American public will become aware of that wrong and pressure the politicians to fix it. You don't take hundreds of thousands of documents you haven't even read and give them to a foreign national.

xoxoxoBruce;874589 wrote:

The need for whistle blowers has proven to be valid, and they should be protected.
But this clown is no whistle blower, he's just an attention whore traitor. He exposed material that he had no idea if it was putting the lives of our soldiers, or anyone else, at risk or not. That's because he didn't give two shits about anyone but himself. ...

Griff;874630 wrote:

Manning did what she thought she had to do. ... She did what she thought she needed to, ...

Griff;874630 wrote:

... I don't want my whistleblowers to have to take IQ tests. ...

Griff;874745 wrote:

... Bush and Cheney were the biggest traitors so far this century ...

Undertoad;874746 wrote:

... Or something.

sexobon;874720 wrote:

Not likely. While being a transitioning T is a predisposing factor and may pose a risk that warrants access restriction for some, not all of them will become attention whoring traitors. That was a character flaw intrinsic to Manning.

Flint;874805 wrote:

... IF the organization was afraid to place normal restrictions on an individual who was exhibiting unstable behavior--regardless of the alleged reason--then that IS ƒucked up. ...

Flint;874805 wrote:

... The entire point is that the reason doesn't matter. ...

Flint;874839 wrote:

[SIZE="3"]Pistols at dawn on the main promenade.[/SIZE]

Then you got you bottle back where you were ready to leave.

Lamplighter;872852 wrote:

The Guardian has a more detailed discussion of this shut-down and of Silent Circle...

The Guardian
Spencer Ackerman
8/9/13

Lavabit email service abruptly shut down citing government interference

One day last May, Ladar Levison returned home to find
an F.B.I. agent&#8217;s business card on his Dallas doorstep.
So began a four-month tangle with law enforcement officials that would end
with Mr. Levison&#8217;s shutting the business he had spent a decade building
and becoming an unlikely hero of privacy advocates in their escalating battle
with the government over Internet security.

But they wanted more, he said: the passwords, encryption keys and computer code
that would essentially allow the government untrammeled access to the protected messages
of all his customers. That, he said, was too much.

&#8220;You don&#8217;t need to bug an entire city to bug one guy&#8217;s phone calls,&#8221;
Mr. Levison, 32, said in a recent interview. &#8220;In my case, they wanted to break open
the entire box just to get to one connection.&#8221;
<snip>
When it was clear Mr. Levison had no choice but to comply,
he devised a way to obey the order but make the government&#8217;s intrusion more arduous.
On Aug 2, he infuriated agents by printing the encryption keys
&#8212; long strings of seemingly random numbers &#8212; on paper in a font
he believed would be hard to scan and turn into a usable digital format.
Indeed, prosecutors described the file as &#8220;largely illegible.&#8221;
<snip>

These are public accusations of criminal activity and a cover-up. It's a class of warfare that people have been craving since Snowden started leaking secrets about the U.S. surveillance state. Whether you think the intelligence agencies have gone too far or not, it's important to have the people's representatives battling for their right to do the job the Constitution puts before them. Otherwise the system gets out of whack. That was one of the lessons of Snowden's revelations and it's also the point of the story Feinstein took to the Senate floor to tell.

tw;894487 wrote:

Extremists in government (including Cheney) said if you were not an American citizen, then kidnapping anywhere in the world was legal, put you in a secret prision, deny you existed, torture you, and do so for as long as they wanted. Extremists Republican lawyers even wrote findings that said it was acceptable.

regular.joe;894944 wrote:

Does every one not realize that there were other avenues of approach for these two rather than sell or give this information to the world at large?

regular.joe;894944 wrote:

Am I the only ass hole who thinks that this guy and Snowden took an oath to NOT reveal information under their care?