Wikileaks nomination for Nobel....

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Nobody is saying ALL here.
Only YOU are saying NOTHING.
Living in the extremes tends to cloud one's thinking.

There are no absolutes.
Well, except for dying, maybe.

Actually TKHAYES wrote:

Quote

I see him as a champion of people who want open and transparent government.

and since he also admitted that he was his hero - one has to conclude that TKHAYES also would like a tranparent (Notice he didn't say translucent) government.

So - yes TKHAYES is "saying ALL"

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I'm not the traitor who is defending the asshole who released thousands of confidential documents.
So....are you chicken? It may sound immature, but not as much as the whining about not being privy to secrets.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,426]

>So....are you chicken?

ooohhh oohhh I've seen this movie! At first all anyone has to do is say "are you chicken?" and they can get the guy to do any asinine thing they please. Finally he figures out that those people aren't worth listening to.

[turtlespeed 212]

Back to the Past, right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

So your PERSONAL information is to be kept secret while you advocate the clandestined acquisition of government secrets, (not crimes, just secrets), that can potentially and have damaged relations with other countries, potentially endangering the whole of the 300M people living in thn this country, but your information is sacred. OK

YES, that is what the framers of the Constitution drafted i believe. open government that answers to the people and protections for the individual people.

Or did I miss something?

So if you published all my personal info, then yes, I believe you would be in violation of the laws of the country by violating my personal privacy/rights/whatever. Pretty saure that has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

There is no such provision in the Constitution that allows the government to commit crimes, keep secrets, or for that matter decide what is secret and what is not.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

So your PERSONAL information is to be kept secret while you advocate the clandestined acquisition of government secrets, (not crimes, just secrets), that can potentially and have damaged relations with other countries, potentially endangering the whole of the 300M people living in thn this country, but your information is sacred. OK

YES, that is what the framers of the Constitution drafted i believe. open government that answers to the people and protections for the individual people.

Or did I miss something?

So if you published all my personal info, then yes, I believe you would be in violation of the laws of the country by violating my personal privacy/rights/whatever. Pretty saure that has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

There is no such provision in the Constitution that allows the government to commit crimes, keep secrets, or for that matter decide what is secret and what is not.

I don't see anything in the constitution that guarantees your privacy.

and just a reminder - you left out an important part of the post that you quoted . . . here, i posted it here again so you can answer. I;m sure it was an oversight as you would never intentionally ignore a question because you didn't like the answer you would have to give as a response, would you?

Quote

So - if all that "Sacred" information, all of it, your holdings, your buisness profit, your personal debt, your tax info, your family's financial and legal portfolios, and perhaps even your children's information, were somehow distributed on the interweb, would the guy that did it still be your hero? What if it was Assange himself?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I am actually allowed to disagree with portions of anything and accept other portions of it, especially when it comes to law. Or the Constitution.

I have no idea what your point it, but sadly, you have the 'right' to try and make that point.....

The point is you selectively hold fast to some parts and play loose with others. You have no consistency.

You are upset that that some "trash" one amendment, while at the same time you "trash" another.

The argument I made was pretty easy to understand, you just choose not to try since you know you are unable without being seen as a hypocrite.

My point about you wanting to go after OBJECTS and not ACTIONS was especially easy to understand.... Your refusal to even try just shows how weak your position is.

My point that almost every Amendment in the Constitution was added to GRANT, not STRIP rights was so simple a 5 year old could grasp the concept.

And this question was so simple it is on grade school tests, "And what did they put into place to assure that the Govt didn't run amok? ALL methods, not just the 1st few. "

You have the right to refrain from answering.... But don't try to act like the question was not easily understood by an adult.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Constitutionally - you appear to not be too up on the issue

And you only understand part of it... Funny huh?

[tkhayes 140]

I would be hypocritical if I disagreed with an amendment and then agreed with it moments later.

I stand by my post. I can disagree with and lobby for, changes to any and or all of the Constitution, the laws or whatever - we all do it every day at some facet of our lives.

you stand by your post (apparently) that is your right.

[tkhayes 140]

I thought I did answer your question, perhaps you have trouble understanding the way I put it. I will attempt to clarify.

If Julian Assange or ANYONE else posted my PERSONAL information on a website, i would consider that an invasion of my privacy and it would be wrong.

If Julian Assange or ANYONE else posts government stuff on a website, I am OK with that.

I believe the differences are clear - personal protections under the constitution and supported by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, versus secret and corrupt government, which is/was meant to be transparent and open to scrutiny by the PEOPLE.

No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I would be hypocritical if I disagreed with an amendment and then agreed with it moments later.

It is also hypocritical to claim that one Amendment applies to every individual and their right to do something (free speech), yet claim another does not apply to every individual and allow them to own something (own a gun).

Never mind that both are pretty darn clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You keep acting in every way that "the people" only applies in the 1st Amendment, and that it does not apply in the 2nd.

And you STILL refuse to answer the simple question.

What process did the Founding Fathers put into place to ensure that this government would never be in a position of tyranny over its citizens?

I'll even give you a hint.... The first has something to do with voting, the second involves 9 judges, the third goes bang.

Quote

YES, that is what the framers of the Constitution drafted i believe. open government that answers to the people and protections for the individual people.

Except where it relates to the 2nd.

Quote

personal protections under the constitution and supported by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion

Yet you ignore that the same SC that has ruled that individuals are allowed arms for their own protection.

[tkhayes 140]

I did not say that the 2nd amendment does not apply to everyone - currently it does. What I said was the country has a gun problem,

And I also said, if there were no guns, there could be no gun crime - that is an ideology (and a fact). But not a suggestion for a change to the constitution.

And I am not required to answer your questions, so ask away.

nice try again......

BTW, the voting system is broken, the 9 judges appear to be doing a pretty good job, and 'bang' whatever, should be a last resort. Neither of those stops the government from keeping secrets and being corrupt, at least not for a minimum of 4 years.....looks good on paper, and then there is the real world.....

No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

So your PERSONAL information is to be kept secret while you advocate the clandestined acquisition of government secrets, (not crimes, just secrets), that can potentially and have damaged relations with other countries, potentially endangering the whole of the 300M people living in thn this country, but your information is sacred. OK

YES, that is what the framers of the Constitution drafted i believe. open government that answers to the people and protections for the individual people.

Or did I miss something?

So if you published all my personal info, then yes, I believe you would be in violation of the laws of the country by violating my personal privacy/rights/whatever. Pretty saure that has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

There is no such provision in the Constitution that allows the government to commit crimes, keep secrets, or for that matter decide what is secret and what is not.

So we can assume you would have been ok with somebody back in '45 telling the Axis powers all about our atomic weapons program and filling them in on anything they didn't already know?
And we can also assume you would have been ok with somebody telling Germany our plans for the invasion of Europe so they could secretly beef up the fortifications and turn 100,000 men into hamburger?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

So we can assume you would have been ok with somebody back in '45 telling the Axis powers all about our atomic weapons program and filling them in on anything they didn't already know?
And we can also assume you would have been ok with somebody telling Germany our plans for the invasion of Europe so they could secretly beef up the fortifications and turn 100,000 men into hamburger?

I have stated the 'difference' as I see it. MANY times:

No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

So we can assume you would have been ok with somebody back in '45 telling the Axis powers all about our atomic weapons program and filling them in on anything they didn't already know?
And we can also assume you would have been ok with somebody telling Germany our plans for the invasion of Europe so they could secretly beef up the fortifications and turn 100,000 men into hamburger?

I have stated the 'difference' as I see it. MANY times:

No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

And I have stated already that ASSange did not know the contents of the documents he released.
You are claiming to differentiate between things you have not even seen....unless, of course, you have actually read each and every document, which I doubt.
Not all damage from leaked secrets is immediate. Not all damage from leaked secrets is apparent.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[champu 1]

Quote

There is no such provision in the Constitution that allows the government to commit crimes, keep secrets, or for that matter decide what is secret and what is not.

True, False, and False respectively. Here's a fairly recent publication discussing the matter if you're interested:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf

[tkhayes 140]

you have no idea what Assange knew or did not know about his document release. i am surprised that you would claim that somehow you do.

I make no such claim. And yes, in 20 years, we will know whether or not any damage was done. But for now, my statement stands true. no damage has been done.

MLK was a traitor in his time. Today he is a hero.

Assange? Who knows. He stands for what I believe in and that's OK by me.

Obviously it is not for you - again you are welcome to your opinion, even if you are wrong.....

[tkhayes 140]

the document you provided is a legal framework and interpretation of the constitutionality of secrets and information.

Quote

While the Supreme Court has stated that the President has inherent constitutional
authority to control access to sensitive information relating to the national defense or to foreign
affairs, no court has found that Congress is without authority to legislate in this area.

So the president has some powers and the Congress can 'adjust them'. I am OK with that. We just disagree with where the 'line is drawn'

Maybe Wikileaks will help Congress improve transparency instead of driving the govt further into secrecy......

[champu 1]

Quote

No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

I linked earlier in this thread to where I posted this last summer:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/wikileaks.mullen.gates/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote

WikiLeaks' founder has said the organization held back thousands of documents in order to redact information that could put people at risk. But CNN's own review of documents found instances of names of informants and those who cooperated against the Taliban, as well as names of suspected insurgents who were being watched.

[tkhayes 140]

and furthermore it says:

Quote

The rules governing how best to protect the nation’s secrets, while still insuring that the
American public has access to information on the operations of its government, past and
present, have shifted along with the political changes in Washington. Over the last fifty
years, with the exception of the Kennedy Administration, a new executive order on
classification was issued each time one of the political parties regained control of the
Executive Branch. These have often been at variance with one another ... at times even
reversing outright the policies of the previous order.

So even governments cannot really concur or agree on what secrets ought to be kept secret and it changes with the political tides. imagine that, different perspectives.....! Wow, what a cool country we live in!

Quote

Various congressional committees have investigated ways to bring some continuity to the
classification system and to limit the President’s broad powers to shield information from public
examination.14 In 1966, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a
presumption that government information will be open to the public unless it falls into one of
FOIA’s exceptions.

Wow, even the Congress though it was important to LIMIT secrets...... again Bravo!

pointless, I will just end up quoting the whole damn thing eventually. But thanks for helping to make my other points even more valid.

[tkhayes 140]

um, the headline said: "Top military official: WikiLeaks founder may have 'blood' on his hands"

It still did not name anyone that had been harmed.

Listen. Bottom line, if there was any damage done, fer sure FOX news and Glenn Beck would have dug it up by now and broadcast it all over the world. (well, at least their world)

I understand the possibility of harm. I think Wikileaks probably did a pretty good job of vetting the info before they put it out. It seems that they are consistently doing that and it seems that the results are also consistent in that no one is being harmed.

Show me that harm came to someone and I will probably change my opinion. (not I do not mean harm because some govt official or politician got embarrassed either)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

you have no idea what Assange knew or did not know about his document release. i am surprised that you would claim that somehow you do.

I make no such claim. And yes, in 20 years, we will know whether or not any damage was done. But for now, my statement stands true. no damage has been done.

MLK was a traitor in his time. Today he is a hero.

Assange? Who knows. He stands for what I believe in and that's OK by me.

Obviously it is not for you - again you are welcome to your opinion, even if you are wrong.....

I know that he did not know the contents of the documents because he did not read them. Pretty simple.
MLK was a traitor? How? In what way?
I guess we can all be grateful that you are not entrusted with sensitive information that can affect national security.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,426]

>MLK was a traitor? How? In what way?

He opposed the Vietnam War, thus offering aid and comfort to our enemies. He attended communist training schools, again supporting our sworn enemies of the time. He and his communist allies regularly attacked police officers.

Don't believe me? Read all about it here:

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang011703.shtml

[tkhayes 140]

Spanish Inquisition:

"You're a heretic and I know you're a heretic. Therefore I will torture you until you confess to being a heretic. Then we will kill you - for the good of your soul of course"

Sounds stupid? It happens in the world probably every day. Any 'secrets' or abuses of power that move us closer to this I am against. Rendition, torture, secret trials, secret juries, unethical wars, and then secrets to justify those wars. Forget it.

Me? Keep a secret? c'mon I thought I had your vote when i run for Congress.....

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>MLK was a traitor? How? In what way?

He opposed the Vietnam War, thus offering aid and comfort to our enemies. He attended communist training schools, again supporting our sworn enemies of the time. He and his communist allies regularly attacked police officers.

Don't believe me? Read all about it here:

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang011703.shtml

It is scary to think there are people who believe all of that.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.