View Poll Results: Releasing leaked info; right or wrong?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • Right - for whatever reason

    32 61.54%
  • Wrong - for whatever reason

    20 38.46%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 124
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    it only doesn't follow according to your logic. Not mine.
    The main difference being that I have explained my logic. You are not showing your work.
    if you feel the need to know exactly what a given "agent" is doing, join the diplomatic core.
    Except by your logic, I am already the diplomatic core. Pure and simple, right?
    Remember, you are your govt. pure and simple.
    What are you basing this premise upon?
    I will again point to the obvious, other countries at this very moment, have shredded, burned and locked up thier diplomatic cables. All wikileaks has done, is slammed the door shut, sealed it up, and someone has melted the key. If you think for one minute this will ever happen again, your dreaming.
    You're missing the forest for the trees.
    I still say, its a slippery slope, you make govt open and transparent, your email and such will become the same.
    You have not fully explained the logic behind this position/
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Because the first roll of government is to protect it's people.
    Really? According to...? Even if we grant that prima facie as the first role, is protecting us from ourselves part of that role? If so, we're really greasing the slopes.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    All the more reason it should be upholding the ideals upon which it was founded.
    Absolutely.

    And do you suggest those are enemies simply due to their 'hating freedom', or due to some sketchy actions by our agents in the past?
    I'm sure you know that's a false dichotomy. Some enemies certainly hate the freedoms we enjoy and foster throughout the world. Others are enemies because of past mistakes and malfeasance. And still others are enemies for a myriad of other reasons. The biggest, in my opinion, is the power we hold.

    All the more reason for our agents acting in a transparent manner.
    I honestly don't get that logic. Seems circular.

    When was the last time that those powers acted separately?
    We just witnessed it with the signing of the latest tax bill.

    Protected by whom? What's their record for protecting whistleblowers?
    Whistleblower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Whistleblower Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    No-FEAR Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    How am I supposed to know? They're hidden. But seriously, it's not a who. It's a what. When our agents are supposed to be acting in our interest, but do not want us to know what they're doing, that's anathema to the ideals upon which the country was supposedly founded. Sunshine laws? Freedom of Information? Are these just words which are supposed to be taken with a nod and a wink, or do words mean things?
    Certainly they do but all the hullaballoo WL has generated hasn't really proved anything to the contrary.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    The biggest, in my opinion, is the power we hold.
    You think it's only about that power, and not in how we use it?
    I honestly don't get that logic. Seems circular.
    When we act transparently, it does more to expose the motivations of those who don't like the actions than to weaken us.
    We just witnessed it with the signing of the latest tax bill.
    How exactly does that highlight separation of powers?

    Did you happen to read those? As an example, the second link even states flat out that one of the agencies supposed to handle the protection has been without leadership since 2008 when the head resigned over allegations that he had retaliated against whistleblowers in his department. As another, the appeals court seems to have only ruled in favor of whistleblowers in 3 out of 203 cases.
    Certainly they do but all the hullaballoo WL has generated hasn't really proved anything to the contrary.
    I should probably note that I'm not necessarily a fan of wikileaks per se, since I find Assange a bit on the slimy side. However, I am a huge proponent of people who are supposed to be acting in my interest being put under a big spotlight. Do we really want information that can save citizens from being scammed held under someone's hat for years?

    WikiLeaks cables: US suspected Allen Stanford long before ECB deal | World news | The Guardian
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You think it's only about that power, and not in how we use it?
    Probably a bit of both but does that necessarily mean how we use it is wrong? Or that our enemies are justified?

    When we act transparently, it does more to expose the motivations of those who don't like the actions than to weaken us.
    Again, I think it depends on how you define "transparent". How would you define it?

    How exactly does that highlight separation of powers?
    Because the President, rather than being able to use a line-item veto, compromised to sign a bill that lost him quite a bit of political capital.

    Did you happen to read those? As an example, the second link even states flat out that one of the agencies supposed to handle the protection has been without leadership since 2008 when the head resigned over allegations that he had retaliated against whistleblowers in his department. As another, the appeals court seems to have only ruled in favor of whistleblowers in 3 out of 203 cases.
    Did you happen to read that the former head of that agency was tried and found guilty of criminal misconduct? In my opinion, that fact says more about the system than the crimes of one man do.

    Having said that, I will agree that we do need to do better to protect whistle-blowers but that's a different issue. The guy who leaked these emails will enjoy no protection whatsoever.

    I should probably note that I'm not necessarily a fan of wikileaks per se, since I find Assange a bit on the slimy side. However, I am a huge proponent of people who are supposed to be acting in my interest being put under a big spotlight. Do we really want information that can save citizens from being scammed held under someone's hat for years?

    WikiLeaks cables: US suspected Allen Stanford long before ECB deal | World news | The Guardian
    Philosophically, I don't disagree. What I disagree with is WL trafficking in stolen emails and being the gate-keeper of what does and does not get exposed.
    Last edited by groovy; 12/21/2010 at 05:33 PM.
  6. #106  
    the power you hold or preceive to hold is what most will want. Its normal for people to want to displace the big boy on the block. yes there could be a degree of the way it is used, but frankly, the US will continue to be blamed for all the worlds ills, no matter what, for a long time to come.

    yes Please, define transparent.

    Assange wants his 15 minutes of fame, up to including disparaging comments about the two womens claims. If this was anyone else, anyone, they would be all through this by now. If, as he claims, he is innocent, than step up, be questioned. if its such a slam dunk on his part, why not be Transparent, tell the cops in Sweden your side. Come on Assange, be transparent. hmmm i doubt he wants that though.

    Finally, I believe its up to Americans to hold themselves up to the light, not someone who possibly promoted the theft in the first place. Strange how the lil private, took them directly to Assange, and not to one of the big US newspapers. Not like the papers havnt gone after Govt before, Water Gate anyone..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Really? According to...? Even if we grant that prima facie as the first role, is protecting us from ourselves part of that role? If so, we're really greasing the slopes.
    That's another discussion. Please take my statement at face value, i.e., the protection of the people from outside threats. But since you bring it up, there's a role for government to protect us from ourselves. We do have crime, murderers, fraud, theft, etc. You don't agree that we should have laws and enforcement to protect honest decent people?

    Not sure where you're going by the greasing the slopes statement. Do I agree that gov has too many controls over our lives? The answer is yes. But like I said, that's another discussion. I was focused on those leaks related to foreign diplomacy and strategy.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Probably a bit of both but does that necessarily mean how we use it is wrong?
    That's obviously going to depend on the individual cases in which we use it.
    Or that our enemies are justified?
    Which enemies? Justified in what? Acting a certain way? Feeling a certain way?
    Again, I think it depends on how you define "transparent". How would you define it?
    Transparent. See-through. Open. Conducting the business of the people in a manner where the people can see what it's doing in their name.
    Because the President, rather than being able to use a line-item veto, compromised to sign a bill that lost him quite a bit of political capital.
    If that's how you're defining separation of powers, I can understand not having a common definition of transparent.
    Did you happen to read that the former head of that agency was tried and found guilty of criminal misconduct? In my opinion, that fact says more about the system than the crimes of one man do.
    So, who's in charge of protecting those whistleblowers now? And what does 3 out of 203 say about the system?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #109  
    And after we get our butts handed to us a few times because we're open and transparent, but not the rest of the world, then what?

    Somehow you have the notion that transparency on the part of the US equals a level playing field? Have you reviewed your medications with your doctor recently?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    That's another discussion.
    How is it a separate discussion?
    Please take my statement at face value, i.e., the protection of the people from outside threats.
    Taking it at face value would not translate in that manner.
    But since you bring it up, there's a role for government to protect us from ourselves.
    Really? What is that role?
    We do have crime, murderers, fraud, theft, etc.
    None of those sorts of laws would protect us from ourselves. They 'protect' us from others.
    You don't agree that we should have laws and enforcement to protect honest decent people?
    How on earth does that question follow?
    Not sure where you're going by the greasing the slopes statement.
    Because if the first role of government is to protect the people, it obviously follows that we should ask 'from what?' If that role includes protecting us from ourselves, that leads to all sorts of anti-libertarian avenues.
    Do I agree that gov has too many controls over our lives? The answer is yes. But like I said, that's another discussion. I was focused on those leaks related to foreign diplomacy and strategy.
    And what I'm trying to get across is that by extension, they are part of the same philosophy. If your government has the authority to 'dig up dirt' on foreign citizens in the interest of 'protecting' us, why don't they have the authority to do the same to everyone? After all, you may really be a sleeper out to destroy our freedoms.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    And after we get our butts handed to us a few times because we're open and transparent, but not the rest of the world, then what?
    Why would we get our butts handed to us? Perhaps you are reading too much into government being transparent?
    Somehow you have the notion that transparency on the part of the US equals a level playing field?
    Hardly.
    Have you reviewed your medications with your doctor recently?
    And yet again I'm forced to ask you whether you think this is appropriate behavior for a mod?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    That's obviously going to depend on the individual cases in which we use it.
    Let's cut to the chase. Do you deny that we have many enemies purely because we have 1) power and influence (regardless of how it's used), and 2) ideological differences?

    Which enemies? Justified in what? Acting a certain way? Feeling a certain way?
    I thought the context was acting in a way that is a threat to us. If it's not why are we talking about this?

    Transparent. See-through. Open. Conducting the business of the people in a manner where the people can see what it's doing in their name.
    Does that include divulging our military power and strategies, including the names and locations of our most sensitive sites?

    If that's how you're defining separation of powers, I can understand not having a common definition of transparent.
    So why don't you tell me why the signing of that bill was NOT an example of powers acting separately. Oh, and we still don't have a common understanding of transparency because the definitions provided thus far have been pretty vague.

    So, who's in charge of protecting those whistleblowers now? And what does 3 out of 203 say about the system?
    If the agency head is vacant does that mean it has ceased action? I haven't read that such is the case. Regarding their record, I suppose it would depend on the merits of the 200. The example given in the article wasn't very helpful because that individual went to the press rather than to Congress.
  13. JLegacy's Avatar
    Posts
    320 Posts
    Global Posts
    323 Global Posts
    #113  


    Glenn Greenwald kicked *** in that debate.
    Peace, Freedom, Prosperity.

    If you have a complaint/request relating to webOS please use the Feedback & Feature Requests Form at the official site.
  14. #114  
    Very good interview, the lawyer is entirely correct. At least to my limited knowledge about all things American. However, ( I almost always have a However or a What if) Last I checked Wikileaks, is not an American Company, nor is Assange American. To compare what he is doing to American newspapers on American soil is two distinctly different things.
    Again, he is forcing transparency on the US, and frankly a number of other countries. Why oh Why is he not being Transparent about the charges in Sweden? They, on the surface, are not connected to the whole leaks thing. Come on Assange, step up, be TRANSPARENT, go to Sweden and answer the charges, if as you say, they are with out merit, why are you fighting it?
    I will say this again, all he has done, is locked down things, leaks like this one, will be hard to get. if you think for one moment that every other country in the world is not or has not destroyed, locked away things, your naive as heck.
    I will point out, in some of the latest releases, there has been some out right black mail, demands made, etc etc, by other country's leaders on the US. Including, the attacking of Iran by Middle East nations, the demand for electronic evesdropping by a latin american nation, or they would remove the DEA's right to operate.
    The list is seemingly endless. No, some of the things said in these cables is less than flattering of some country (s), but I ask you this. Have you never ever ever turned to someone else and made a disparging comment about another person? hmmmm, or Sent an email doing the same thing?
    Ya Ya I know, they should know better, but these are just people, who make mistakes.
    PS, the "NEED/RIGHT" to know, and , the "FREEDOM" of the internet, are concepts only, becareful what you ask for, you may end up getting far more than you bargined for.
    Pandoras box, once opened, released things upon the world, that can never be put back in.
    Are YOU, prepared for that? Have you looked down the road at what this can end up meaning to you in every day life? Some how, I doubt it.
    Last edited by xForsaken; 12/30/2010 at 09:37 AM.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  15. #115  
    OHHHH the slippery slope, now your banking info is subject to Assange's wiki leaks, and his ooohhhh so good vetting. hmmm better sharpen up your skis, skates or what ever you wear.. if you deal with that lil swiss bank, heck even if you dont, your banking info is about to be on the web.. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee splat.
    And no, just because you deal with a Swiss bank, does not mean your trying to hide your money. A lot of people deal with them, millions of people, not just crooks, but now, every one is going to get to see it.. gotta love Assange. Its all about transparency Dont ya know..
    I think Assange has less to worry about now from the US govt, and a whole lot more to worry about from say.. some guy from any one of a couple dozen countries, who really is hiding money.. Think about it.. if your say a Columbian drug lord, and you have millions in a bank in Switzerland, you have zero problem shooting your best friend for stealing from you,, what is gonna stop him from going after Assange.. lol.. ohhh wait,, it will be a plot from the powers in the US or a Jewish conspiracy or or or.. geeesh..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  16. #116  
    What'ch 'ou talkin' about Willis?
    Down with the BourgeoisOS oppressors, webOS users unite!
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    OHHHH the slippery slope, now your banking info is subject to Assange's wiki leaks, and his ooohhhh so good vetting. hmmm better sharpen up your skis, skates or what ever you wear.. if you deal with that lil swiss bank, heck even if you dont, your banking info is about to be on the web.. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee splat.
    And no, just because you deal with a Swiss bank, does not mean your trying to hide your money. A lot of people deal with them, millions of people, not just crooks, but now, every one is going to get to see it.. gotta love Assange. Its all about transparency Dont ya know..
    I think Assange has less to worry about now from the US govt, and a whole lot more to worry about from say.. some guy from any one of a couple dozen countries, who really is hiding money.. Think about it.. if your say a Columbian drug lord, and you have millions in a bank in Switzerland, you have zero problem shooting your best friend for stealing from you,, what is gonna stop him from going after Assange.. lol.. ohhh wait,, it will be a plot from the powers in the US or a Jewish conspiracy or or or.. geeesh..
    Have you actually read wikileaks' publication on what they plan to do with those thousands of bank details?
    Have you investigated what details they concern, (not your regular joe) all show tactics of tax evasion?
    Have you investigated what authorities the whistleblower tried contacted before turning to wikileaks?

    I don't think you've fulfilled any of those questions, and therefore have little knowledge of what is happening.
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by pip smith View Post
    Have you actually read wikileaks' publication on what they plan to do with those thousands of bank details?
    Have you investigated what details they concern, (not your regular joe) all show tactics of tax evasion?
    Have you investigated what authorities the whistleblower tried contacted before turning to wikileaks?

    I don't think you've fulfilled any of those questions, and therefore have little knowledge of what is happening.
    hmmm I dont think it was all just your regular tax cheat that this guy copied... illegally i might add,
    As the info is to be "vetted" by Assange, and I have no access to this info, than how would I know.
    As to officials, the report I read, stated he was sending it to the German govt I believe. Again, Illegally taking the information, I do believe he was sentenced and served what 30 days for another similar offense.

    the report i read, didnt omit the regular joe, it was stated it covered several years of info.. so until Assange "vets" this info no one will know. Unless of course you know better.
    It rationalized the taking of the info by saying we are after the tax cheats the crooked politicians, etc etc.. however, who is to say any one who uses that bank or others, is a tax cheat? Does this make your local bank open to the same sort of theft?
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by Zen00 View Post
    What'ch 'ou talkin' about Willis?
    BBC News - Wikileaks given data on Swiss bank accounts
    here is the BBC version of the events unfolding
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    hmmm I dont think it was all just your regular tax cheat that this guy copied... illegally i might add,
    As the info is to be "vetted" by Assange, and I have no access to this info, than how would I know.
    As to officials, the report I read, stated he was sending it to the German govt I believe. Again, Illegally taking the information, I do believe he was sentenced and served what 30 days for another similar offense.

    the report i read, didnt omit the regular joe, it was stated it covered several years of info.. so until Assange "vets" this info no one will know. Unless of course you know better.
    It rationalized the taking of the info by saying we are after the tax cheats the crooked politicians, etc etc.. however, who is to say any one who uses that bank or others, is a tax cheat? Does this make your local bank open to the same sort of theft?
    The report you read is highly likely to be opininiated media article that is often non-factual and/or construed.
    You are right that the public does not know any of the actual details until wikileaks and its close partners vets and publish it, and until then we can not make a conclusion of how dangerous this act may be.
    But we can and should look at what caused this individual to turn to wikileaks after his own government failed to launch a proper investigation.

    If I could I would spend a little longer outlining the facts in this case, but I have to bail right now.
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions