On December 07 2010 09:16 kathode wrote: There was an interesting read in the WSJ today about this bomb of information.
Assange has written several documents about his dislike for the USA and other conspiracy documents. And yeah, it definitely will make the government seem like it has nothing to hide and will make what they are doing more transparent, but this will lead to unfavorable ramifications to the way the government is operated. These documents will make the government return back to its pre-9/11 ways of being more tight-lipped and increased inefficiency with its transferring of information between officials. So yeah, that's great we feel like we have more power against the government, but it's not going to be benificial in the long-run to the US.
Im saddened by reading things like this. Do people actually believe these sorts of things when they write them? What pre-9/11 ways of being more tight lipped? What?
What other conspiracy documents? "and yeah, it definitely will make the government seem like it has nothing to hide and make what they are doing more transparent"... what? 'Ramifications' to the way the government is operated... what?
i like your word choice though. "bomb of information". Hahaha... yes, what a terrorist.
I was just reading about the mastercard and paypal canceling their contract with wikileaks page and how the swish bank closed his account. In each of these cases the reason is either "illegal activity" or some similar undefined bullshit.
At this moment I am more sad then I was yesterday as now I know I live in a worse world then I though I did.
US government is using "legal" ways to set up and bring down a person that is fighting corruption and lies.
Let me see who will say that USA defeated the red menace in the cold war when actually they have turned into that menace!!
On December 07 2010 09:16 kathode wrote: There was an interesting read in the WSJ today about this bomb of information.
Assange has written several documents about his dislike for the USA and other conspiracy documents. And yeah, it definitely will make the government seem like it has nothing to hide and will make what they are doing more transparent, but this will lead to unfavorable ramifications to the way the government is operated. These documents will make the government return back to its pre-9/11 ways of being more tight-lipped and increased inefficiency with its transferring of information between officials. So yeah, that's great we feel like we have more power against the government, but it's not going to be benificial in the long-run to the US.
Please define "unfavorable ramifications" and "being more tight-lipped" and "increased inefficiency". Otherwise this post is just talking point propaganda and more nonsense defending censorship and corruption.
On December 07 2010 09:03 acker wrote: In other news, MasterCard is now blocking donations to WIkileaks. That brings it up to Amazon, Paypal, Tableau, and PostFinance. Oh, yeah, and EveryDNS.
I really don't like to quote and make statements like this, and don't take it as me singling you out, but you have to understand that these private companies all have policies agreed to by the user/customer that allow them to close accounts for people accused of or suspected of criminal activity. Regardless of WikiLeaks being the moral victor or enemy in your opinion or anyone's opinion, the organization openly and actively participates in illegal behaviors as defined by many countries.
Were they asked by the US government to stop transactions that benefit WikiLeaks? Probably, but that doesn't mean that they were pressured at all. The companies were following their usual policies, just like you would be banned in Starcraft for using maphacks if you were to do so and evidence was provided that you were doing as such because you are violating your terms of use.
On December 07 2010 10:52 Hikko wrote: I really don't like to quote and make statements like this, and don't take it as me singling you out, but you have to understand that these private companies all have policies agreed to by the user/customer that allow them to close accounts for people accused of or suspected of criminal activity. Regardless of WikiLeaks being the moral victor or enemy in your opinion or anyone's opinion, the organization openly and actively participates in illegal behaviors as defined by many countries.
Were they asked by the US government to stop transactions that benefit WikiLeaks? Probably, but that doesn't mean that they were pressured at all. The companies were following their usual policies, just like you would be banned in Starcraft for using maphacks if you were to do so and evidence was provided that you were doing as such because you are violating your terms of use.
I haven't challenged MasterCard's right to withhold or deny credit (the monetary sense) to Assange. I actually agree with you that, as a private institution, MasterCard has the right to cut ties with Assange, the same right that Teamliquid has to ban me at their whim, or the right I have to stop free speech at my doorstep.
However, this does not mean that I should, in any way, agree with their actions, nor that I should passively support or "understand" the willingness of said companies to bend to United States pressure, especially in a whistleblower's case with no proven or even substantiated allegations.
And, as a consumer and concerned citizen of the world, I can and will post about companies that bend their knee over values judgments like this, to better inform* others about what said companies do and do not do.
*well, persuade. "Inform" sounds too much like a weasel word.
On December 07 2010 09:16 kathode wrote: There was an interesting read in the WSJ today about this bomb of information.
Assange has written several documents about his dislike for the USA and other conspiracy documents. And yeah, it definitely will make the government seem like it has nothing to hide and will make what they are doing more transparent, but this will lead to unfavorable ramifications to the way the government is operated. These documents will make the government return back to its pre-9/11 ways of being more tight-lipped and increased inefficiency with its transferring of information between officials. So yeah, that's great we feel like we have more power against the government, but it's not going to be benificial in the long-run to the US.
Please define "unfavorable ramifications" and "being more tight-lipped" and "increased inefficiency". Otherwise this post is just talking point propaganda and more nonsense defending censorship and corruption.
I read it from the TIME magazine, before 9/11, different agency and department's computer system does not have a way to share information. For example president Harry Truman and the CIA never knew that the FBI and the US army had cracked the soviet codebooks after world war 2. Another example with a more divasting impact, the FBI had known that al-Qaeda supporter was attempting to learn to fly commercial jet but failed to tell the CIA, even as the agency was desperately trying to firgure out the details of an airline plot it knew was coming.
So they addressed the inefficiency with a system that allow more information sharing, however this resulted in Bradley Manning able to get hold of all these information at once and leaked it out to the public.
I can see where the tight-lipped theory coming from, as different agency and department might not willing to share information, resulted in inefficiency, and less transparent not only to the public, but the governament itself.
On December 07 2010 10:56 sc4k wrote: Happily gave 25 euros to wikileaks...I think the concept is spot on.
PS secretly hoping for one of the cables to talk about aliens haha.
Heh, I did that too, the moment I saw that Mastercard had pulled out. I figure I'd donate while it was still possible.
I've noticed something. There's a gap in the date of the releases. The dates of transmissions of the cables run from 1966 up to December 1989, sporadically, then there are releases every year since June 2003.
Now, the guardian has released a list of what cables are in the pile to be released, and there are certainly plenty of unreleased cables in that time window.
So why the gap? My guess is that currently the media outlets that are working with Wikileaks are sifting every cable from the start of the 1990 Kuwait invasion right through the sanctions regime, Saddam's disposal of the WMDs he definitely had in the early '90s, past 9/11, to the end of the 2003 Iraq invasion, with a view to giving us a massive set of historical stories on exactly how the Iraq war came to happen.
I'm calling it now, and I'm sure whatever comes out will piss all over the Chilcott inquiry we have here...
On December 07 2010 09:03 acker wrote: In other news, MasterCard is now blocking donations to WIkileaks. That brings it up to Amazon, Paypal, Tableau, and PostFinance. Oh, yeah, and EveryDNS.
... Regardless of WikiLeaks being the moral victor or enemy in your opinion or anyone's opinion, the organization openly and actively participates in illegal behaviors as defined by many countries.
The thing is, nothing illegal has been implicated on Assange.
On December 07 2010 11:41 Aim Here wrote: I've noticed something. There's a gap in the date of the releases. The dates of transmissions of the cables run from 1966 up to December 1989, sporadically, then there are releases every year since June 2003.
I noticed that too. It seems like they are trying to save some of the "good stuff" (as in really bad :/ ) for later. I mean, they started with some uninteresting cables about what other head of states are called behind their backs. Stuff that, although embarassing, is not too important. Then, slowly, they release more sensitive information, like strategic points in Europe and how they've swindled other countries for shitloads of cash and so on. They might be saving the timespan of 2001-2003 for the Grand Finale, which is 9/11 and its ramifications; the planning of the Afghan and Iraqi war and on what basis they were really fought (if indeed they were fought for oil pipes or something similar) and so on.
On December 07 2010 11:41 Aim Here wrote: I've noticed something. There's a gap in the date of the releases. The dates of transmissions of the cables run from 1966 up to December 1989, sporadically, then there are releases every year since June 2003.
I noticed that too. It seems like they are trying to save some of the "good stuff" (as in really bad :/ ) for later. I mean, they started with some uninteresting cables about what other head of states are called behind their backs. Stuff that, although embarassing, is not too important. Then, slowly, they release more sensitive information, like strategic points in Europe and how they've swindled other countries for shitloads of cash and so on. They might be saving the timespan of 2001-2003 for the Grand Finale, which is 9/11 and its ramifications; the planning of the Afghan and Iraqi war and on what basis they were really fought (if indeed they were fought for oil pipes or something similar) and so on.
Well I am hoping that cables from that time will show us the truth behind 9/11. If they have info about that waiting for the right time to tell us about it is advisable. Because that info just might change the world more then we might want to...
according to my Iphone App for CNN Julian has just been arrested in london. No official update from CNN ( on website ) yet tho.. i imagine they are writing it up now.
I'm watching Euronews now. Assange was arrested in London. It's said that his lawyer will try to convince the UK govt not to hand Assange over to Sweden as they are "working for the US". The decision is to be made in 28 days.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4219/26041969.png)
