Assange says leaks suck.

SVreX wrote: You gonna answer J-man's question about honorable people?

nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

From the Wiki iggy linked:

'A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (e.g.: "Why me?")[1] Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to think about what the (often obvious) answer to the question must be. When a speaker states, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?", no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.'

from iggy's response to my question:

Jensenman wrote: Or in your opinion are the only honorable people left those who hack and steal? (Sounds like a direct question to me.)

iggy wrote: interesting argument line you have chosen. But it all hinges on this last sentence.. You believe that he has stolen something and did it himself.. I believe the guy received a bunch of info and published it like a journalist. very interesting.

I think that is very interesting.

Jensenman wrote: So you first say it's an interesting question, then you say it's rhetorical? Make up your mind. FWIW, in the world of the criminal, someone who knowingly receives stolen goods is considered as guilty as the person who stole it. But we are expected to believe that in the world of the hacker and journalist this basic tenet of the law is supposed to be suspended. I think that is very interesting.

The NY times published the same info.. Since they now posess the same stolen information, as you say.. Should we not go after them with the same vigor that we are attacking assange?

Sounds like a damn good idea to me. And you still haven't answered my question.

Jensenman wrote: Sounds like a damn good idea to me. And you still haven't answered my question.

and I won't cause you know me well enough..

Now.. What is interesting about this whole thing is that people who are generalized as being big government people generally side with Assange want the information to be known and government to be more transparent. Those who are generally anti-wikileaks are those who want small government/government out of their lives, but are OK with having the government do things that they don't agree with and are OK with having no knowledge of it..

Seems like a role reversal.

Wikileaks is down today.

I thought that couldn't happen.

Thoughts?

not down. Where is your source

http://twitter.com/wikileaks no mention on the facetwits...

FBI seized a server in texas.. but not wikileaks related..

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=wikileaks+down#q=wikileaks+down&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=4f47765c364753ee

sorry man.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/index.html

At last someone in the DOJ grew a pair.

update II to this article is interesting..

UPDATE II: It's worth recalling -- and I hope journalists writing about this story remind themselves -- that all of this extraordinary probing and "criminal" investigating is stemming from WikiLeaks' doing nothing more than publishing classified information showing what the U.S. Government is doing: something investigative journalists, by definition, do all the time. And the key question now is this: did other Internet and social network companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) receive similar Orders and then quietly comply? It's difficult to imagine why the DOJ would want information only from Twitter; if anything, given the limited information it has about users, Twitter would seem one of the least fruitful avenues to pursue. But if other companies did receive and quietly comply with these orders, it will be a long time before we know, if we ever do, given the prohibition in these orders on disclosing even its existence to anyone.

Update III is also interesting, mentioning and linking to articles on the Obama's administration war on whistleblowers..

The author shows his bias in this paragraph:

I'll have much more on the implications of this tomorrow. Suffice to say, this is a serious escalation of the DOJ's efforts to probe, harass and intimidate anyone having to do with WikiLeaks. Previously, Appelbaum as well as Bradley Manning supporter David House -- both American citizens -- had their laptops and other electronic equipment seized at the border by Homeland Security agents when attempting to re-enter the U.S.

He doesn't seem to consider the option that it could be an escalation of the DOJ's efforts to investigate (which is their job), but boldly proclaims it is an escalation of their efforts to probe, harass, and intimidate (which is, so far, an opinion).

Hmmm...

SVreX wrote: The author shows his bias in this paragraph:

I'll have much more on the implications of this tomorrow. Suffice to say, this is a serious escalation of the DOJ's efforts to probe, harass and intimidate anyone having to do with WikiLeaks. Previously, Appelbaum as well as Bradley Manning supporter David House -- both American citizens -- had their laptops and other electronic equipment seized at the border by Homeland Security agents when attempting to re-enter the U.S.

He doesn't seem to consider the option that it could be an escalation of the DOJ's efforts to investigate (which is their job), but boldly proclaims it is an escalation of their efforts to probe, harass, and intimidate (which is, so far, an opinion). Hmmm...

a writer who has a bias against those who are trying to limit investigative journalists.. HA

Thats like being shocked that a corn farmer has a bias for the corn lobby.

come on really.

Here we go again...

As a contractor, I am THRILLED when the DOJ (or anyone else) investigates anyone in my industry whose practices might be questionable or illegal. I applaud them doing their job.

And if they are found guilty, I am THRILLED if they are prosecuted.

And if they are found innocent, I am THRILLED that the industry has avoided a black eye, and an industry professional is doing their job well.

Any questions, Iggy? Your biases are also very clear.

We had our sewer lateral replaced last week. I spent the day repairing the fence they took apart to get the back hoe in. I'm thinking I should have a beer. Haven't had one in years. Maybe once of those crazy looking ones with the funny names all the real beer fans like to drink.

What's your favorite?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: We had our sewer lateral replaced last week. I spent the day repairing the fence they took apart to get the back hoe in. I'm thinking I should have a beer. Haven't had one in years. Maybe once of those crazy looking ones with the funny names all the real beer fans like to drink. What's your favorite?

This doesn't work twice bud. Get back to the other thread, and take your beer with you (or leave it here so we can be drunk while arguing about politics/society).

Worth a shot.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Worth a shot.

No shots allowed either!

Hm. So lemme get this straight, iggy.

You say Mister 'Investigative Journalist' can poke and pry all he wants, break the law in any way he wants in order to uncover whatever information he is after. Then he can hide behind the First Amendment. He now considers himself a hero and presents himself to the world as such.

But if a government investigates him through legal means for those same transgressions and breaking of the law (which as a government of the people they are sworn to uphold), suddenly they are the bad guys.

Gotcha.

Curmudgeon wrote: Hm. So lemme get this straight, iggy. You say Mister 'Investigative Journalist' can poke and pry all he wants, break the law in any way he wants in order to uncover whatever information he is after. Then he can hide behind the First Amendment. He now considers himself a hero and presents himself to the world as such. But if a government investigates him through legal means for those same transgressions and breaking of the law (which as a government of the people they are sworn to uphold), suddenly they are the bad guys. Gotcha.

didn't say they were bad guys..

I think this pattern of things is concerning and it is not the first thing..

but let them investigate... I'm pretty sure this guy isn't dumb to outright break the law.

Again, where is the investigation into the NYT and The Guardian? Seems to be that the DOJ has a pointed attack going rather than a proper investigation.

Ignorant wrote: Again, where is the investigation into the NYT and The Guardian? Seems to be that the DOJ has a pointed attack going rather than a proper investigation.

It would appear the DOJ is targeting Assange and Wikileaks in order to determine the source(s) of the leaks. Is a foreign-national protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment rights? If anyone has that answer, please chime in.

The NYT's and Guardian's decisions to publish the leaks is debatable, but is little different than any news outlet linking to articles originally from AP/UPI - which is a minute-by-minute occurrence.

oldsaw wrote: Is a foreign-national protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment rights? If anyone has that answer, please chime in. The NYT's and Guardian's decisions to publish the leaks is debatable, but is little different than any news outlet linking to articles originally from AP/UPI - which is a minute-by-minute occurrence.

To the 1st point, Your question highlights the exact reason why most of the world hates us... It highlights the greatest hypocrisy of all time. We are the worlds shining beacon of freedom, yet we support oppressive regimes and perpetrate oppressive policies around the world. Blame Iran on us.

So, assume he committed no crime(which I still believe he has not) in getting those files and acted as any news source in receiving and then publishing interesting stuff.. hmmm....

I never did make it out to get some beer.

oldsaw wrote: Is a foreign-national protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment rights? If anyone has that answer, please chime in.

No.

No hypocrisy, either.

A foreign national is protected by the laws of their nationality. We value that, and protect that right of people to determine their own governance.

Sometimes, that puts them in conflict with us.

We error gravely when we assume that everyone else has the same rights we do.

BTW, we also do not have the same rights they do. If you commit a crime in France, Afghanistan or Morocco, you are subject to their laws. You do not get to be judged under the laws of the U.S.

Ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Is a foreign-national protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment rights? If anyone has that answer, please chime in. The NYT's and Guardian's decisions to publish the leaks is debatable, but is little different than any news outlet linking to articles originally from AP/UPI - which is a minute-by-minute occurrence.

To the 1st point, Your question highlights the exact reason why most of the world hates us... It highlights the greatest hypocrisy of all time. We are the worlds shining beacon of freedom, yet we support oppressive regimes and perpetrate oppressive policies around the world. Blame Iran on us. So, assume he committed no crime(which I still believe he has not) in getting those files and acted as any news source in receiving and then publishing interesting stuff.. hmmm....

The "source" is the problem, not anyone who is given the information. If you're suggesting the US should concentrate efforts to plug leaks instead of those who publish them, I totally agree.

As far as supporting oppressive regimes and perpetrating oppressive policies, the US is guilty but hardly alone.

But we make a damn good scapegoat for a world full of hypocrites.