|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 11 2019 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view.
What practice? He got accused of a crime in Sweden and violated his bail in England. And really pissed off his hosts in Ecuadorian embassy.
It’s not about nailing Trump, but about being rid of a nefarious man working hand to hand with a hostile dictatorship to advance its interest and weaken the USA.
|
On April 11 2019 21:17 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 21:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 20:54 Doublemint wrote:On April 11 2019 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view. I totally agree, Wikileaks might have been a pretty cool and nice idea, but later on especially after Assange's somewhat nervous breakdown and mismanagement/arrest it was - if not a willing(doubtful) then maybe an unwilling(very much likely) - participant of the GRU agencies propaganda efforts. I understand where you are coming from, but wake the hell up - get woke is the sayin, no?. it's a messy world. there are enemies and there are friends, and most people you will ever meet or read about are very much in between. @gorsa. yeah we will see. thing is, he had access to the internet in his embassy room, and he still knows how to reach people. and a man in his position knows people. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but there's nothing I'm aware of Assange doing that's worse than the US government that wants to prosecute him. The issue of Assange himself aside, by this logic all crime should be legal because the governments are also doing lots of illegal stuff.
No. My comment is particularly about the nature of his "crimes" and his "victims" as well as the process by which "justice" is being pursued.
I happen to agree with the former president of Ecuador Rafael Correa, though perhaps not "the greatest", certainly the most notorious (or soon to be) for this generation.
On April 11 2019 21:26 Dan HH wrote:
On one hand, I see no reason to cheer for someone being extradited to the US for publishing leaked emails....
Very much this imo
|
On April 11 2019 21:19 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 20:54 Doublemint wrote:On April 11 2019 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view. I totally agree, Wikileaks might have been a pretty cool and nice idea, but later on especially after Assange's somewhat nervous breakdown and mismanagement/arrest it was - if not a willing(doubtful) then maybe an unwilling(very much likely) - participant of the GRU agencies propaganda efforts. I understand where you are coming from, but wake the hell up - get woke is the sayin, no?. it's a messy world. there are enemies and there are friends, and most people you will ever meet or read about are very much in between. @gorsa. yeah we will see. thing is, he had access to the internet in his embassy room, and he still knows how to reach people. and a man in his position knows people. I have no idea what you're saying half the time. I understand English might not be your first language, so it would be helpful if you made shorter sentences that are more on point. In your post above you agreed that arresting Assange is a waste of time while acknowledging that he played a part in election meddling. Then you tell someone, I can't figure out who, to wake up because people aren't always pure enemies or pure friends... Surely you can tell why I'm having trouble following your line of thoughts here?
I quoted GH, and therefore primarily answered to his post. some of us are somewhat old acquaintaces here in this thread. that last sentence was for him.
you are probably right that I should have put it to PM for others like you who would be confused by not knowing that.
my English is plenty fine, thank you very much. and I never said arresting Assange was a waste of time.
|
I personally never liked WikiLeaks, the idea of someone publishing classified information about my country really rubs me the wrong way. Sure, some illegal activity of the government may be exposed to the public, but data published in this way is a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies and may be used later to the detriment of my country. You know, the same country I live in and rely on for my security and livelihood.
|
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA.
|
On April 11 2019 21:45 PoulsenB wrote:
I personally never liked WikiLeaks, the idea of someone publishing classified information about my country really rubs me the wrong way. Sure, some illegal activity of the government may be exposed to the public, but data published in this way is a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies and may be used later to the detriment of my country. You know, the same country I live in and rely on for my security and livelihood.
Fair enough. We just fundamentally disagree on the severity of the injustice of criminal government activity and the value of the safety of those committing the crimes against humanity/their own citizens and the rest of humanity/their citizenry.
On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA.
P6 is confirmed a fed.
No, but seriously, there's a reason Assange got dragged out of the Embassy and our press whined about not being let into Trumps press briefings. I suspect the difference in transparency is directly related to the threat from power they are under for what they publish.
EDIT: As far as the CIA goes we know they were committing war crimes and a supervisor of said torture is now in charge and the CIA runs the state dept. They don't care that you know because you're (speaking about the parties collectively here) not gunna stop them.
EDIT2: I think we can tie this all together with Mueller, the FBI, post *9/11* surveillance, and the NSA, and how there's so much anticipation for the Mueller report.
Hopefully this is clarifying why I find all these recent(ly mentioned) positions by the center/Democrats quite concerning?
|
Jesus, Assange looked like a nutcase. Worst airbnb review ever incoming.
|
On April 11 2019 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 21:45 PoulsenB wrote:
I personally never liked WikiLeaks, the idea of someone publishing classified information about my country really rubs me the wrong way. Sure, some illegal activity of the government may be exposed to the public, but data published in this way is a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies and may be used later to the detriment of my country. You know, the same country I live in and rely on for my security and livelihood. Fair enough. We just fundamentally disagree on the severity of the injustice of criminal government activity and the value of the safety of those committing the crimes against humanity/their own citizens and the rest of humanity/their citizenry. Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. P6 is confirmed a fed. No, but seriously, there's a reason Assange got dragged out of the Embassy and our press whined about not being let into Trumps press briefings. I suspect the difference in transparency is directly related to the threat from power they are under for what they publish. EDIT: As far as the CIA goes we know they were committing war crimes and a supervisor of said torture is now in charge and the CIA runs the state dept. They don't care that you know because you're (speaking about the parties collectively here) not gunna stop them. EDIT2: I think we can tie this all together with Mueller, the FBI, post FBI surveillance, and the NSA, and how there's so much anticipation for the Mueller report. Hopefully this is clarifying why I find all these recent positions by the center/Democrats quite concerning?
To clarify, I was talking in general terms and not about the USA/Assange matter specifically, and my views on the issue surely differ due to me living in Poland as our government, while generally shitty no matter who is in power at a given moment, hasn't been committing much crimes against humanity lately. Also, I'd like to add I have a lot of disdain (to put it lightly) for all the evil shit the US has been doing since forever and would gladly see the responsible parties brought to justice.
|
On April 11 2019 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 21:45 PoulsenB wrote:
I personally never liked WikiLeaks, the idea of someone publishing classified information about my country really rubs me the wrong way. Sure, some illegal activity of the government may be exposed to the public, but data published in this way is a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies and may be used later to the detriment of my country. You know, the same country I live in and rely on for my security and livelihood. Fair enough. We just fundamentally disagree on the severity of the injustice of criminal government activity and the value of the safety of those committing the crimes against humanity/their own citizens and the rest of humanity/their citizenry. Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. P6 is confirmed a fed. No, but seriously, there's a reason Assange got dragged out of the Embassy and our press whined about not being let into Trumps press briefings. I suspect the difference in transparency is directly related to the threat from power they are under for what they publish. EDIT: As far as the CIA goes we know they were committing war crimes and a supervisor of said torture is now in charge and the CIA runs the state dept. They don't care that you know because you're (speaking about the parties collectively here) not gunna stop them. EDIT2: I think we can tie this all together with Mueller, the FBI, post *9/11* surveillance, and the NSA, and how there's so much anticipation for the Mueller report. Hopefully this is clarifying why I find all these recent(ly mentioned) positions by the center/Democrats quite concerning?
All of that is true. I’m not happy with the state of our surveillance state, CIA or NSA. And I would be very happy if the people who changed the laws and rules surrounding the CIA and NSA were held accountable for those actions. But Liz Cheney is a member of the House of Representatives and leader in the GOP, so I kinda doubt we are ever going to get a shot at her husband. And we should really go after the people who changed the laws to make torture legal, thereby removing any CIA officer’s ability to refuse an illegal order in the field. Because agents and officers did object and raise concerns, but were told it was legal and would go to prison for refusing orders if they didn’t do it.
Assange is a different story. The man isn’t a journalist and has always been interested in his stroking his own ego. He has never been shy about it. If he wasn’t stealing secrets from the government, my bet is he would be running some tabloid and making famous people look foolish or whatever he could find to make himself feel important and powerful.
|
Northern Ireland26318 Posts
On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA.
I can’t exactly blame them.
I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g
Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork?
If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices.
Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now?
If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it.
Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks.
There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation.
Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack.
I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell.
|
Assange has only been charged in connection with the Chelsea Manning leaks. Interestingly, the indictment wasn’t filed until March 2018 even though the offense occurred in 2010. I’m not particularly concerned with the civil liberty implications of his prosecution because what he has been charged with doing is not just journalism. The charge is that he provided material assistance to Manning’s efforts to hack and access US government files. In other words, Assange isn’t being charged strictly for publication.
|
On April 11 2019 22:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 21:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 21:45 PoulsenB wrote:
I personally never liked WikiLeaks, the idea of someone publishing classified information about my country really rubs me the wrong way. Sure, some illegal activity of the government may be exposed to the public, but data published in this way is a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies and may be used later to the detriment of my country. You know, the same country I live in and rely on for my security and livelihood. Fair enough. We just fundamentally disagree on the severity of the injustice of criminal government activity and the value of the safety of those committing the crimes against humanity/their own citizens and the rest of humanity/their citizenry. On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. P6 is confirmed a fed. No, but seriously, there's a reason Assange got dragged out of the Embassy and our press whined about not being let into Trumps press briefings. I suspect the difference in transparency is directly related to the threat from power they are under for what they publish. EDIT: As far as the CIA goes we know they were committing war crimes and a supervisor of said torture is now in charge and the CIA runs the state dept. They don't care that you know because you're (speaking about the parties collectively here) not gunna stop them. EDIT2: I think we can tie this all together with Mueller, the FBI, post *9/11* surveillance, and the NSA, and how there's so much anticipation for the Mueller report. Hopefully this is clarifying why I find all these recent(ly mentioned) positions by the center/Democrats quite concerning? All of that is true. I’m not happy with the state of our surveillance state, CIA or NSA. And I would be very happy if the people who changed the laws and rules surrounding the CIA and NSA were held accountable for those actions. But Liz Cheney is a member of the House of Representatives and leader in the GOP, so I kinda doubt we are ever going to get a shot at her husband. And we should really go after the people who changed the laws to make torture legal, thereby removing any CIA officer’s ability to refuse an illegal order in the field. Because agents and officers did object and raise concerns, but were told it was legal and would go to prison for refusing orders if they didn’t do it. Assange is a different story. The man isn’t a journalist and has always been interested in his stroking his own ego. He has never been shy about it. If he wasn’t stealing secrets from the government, my bet is he would be running some tabloid and making famous people look foolish or whatever he could find to make himself feel important and powerful.
I can understand not liking Assange but it's thinking that makes any of this acceptable is my issue I'm raising. War criminals aren't worried because they can get convicted, pardoned by the next one, then, hired by one later in no small part because of (imo) a public that cheers Assange getting dragged out of the embassy and a Mueller report and lamenting Assange's personal peculiarities and/or the publishing (it's unclear what crime was allegedly committed).
Who *is* worried are journalists that are concerned about the precedent this sets (the ones that at least still imagine themselves not complete sycophants), Chelsea Manning, and people who are familiar with the consequences of a society that turns a blind eye or cheers on the erosion of civil rights so long as it's politically advantageous in the short-term.
On April 11 2019 22:45 xDaunt wrote:
Assange has only been charged in connection with the Chelsea Manning leaks. Interestingly, the indictment wasn’t filed until March 2018 even though the offense occurred in 2010. I’m not particularly concerned with the civil liberty implications of his prosecution because what he has been charged for doing is not just journalism. The charge is that he provided material assistance to Manning’s efforts to hack and access US government files. In other words, Assange isn’t being charged strictly for publication.
Let's say I'm mildly skeptical they can prove it or that anyone will care besides the ones objecting now. Or that helping Manning should be considered a crime.
|
On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell.
I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me.
Edit: also a reason I do not trust Wikileaks is that they are willing to spread false information to damage people they believe or their enemies. As shown below.
|
On April 11 2019 21:45 PoulsenB wrote:
I personally never liked WikiLeaks, the idea of someone publishing classified information about my country really rubs me the wrong way. Sure, some illegal activity of the government may be exposed to the public, but data published in this way is a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies and may be used later to the detriment of my country. You know, the same country I live in and rely on for my security and livelihood.
It sucks for US reputation the most, but people like Assange have shed a lot of light on war crimes and other terrible crimes by the US military and government, which is important for lowering corruption, changing policies and for the victims affected by the crimes as well. And I think whistle blowers have an overall positive effect on the evolution of freedom of speech and human rights...
If US shuts the light on every whistle blower like Assange and Snowden or other investigative journalists then how would the normal citizen know about corruption and crime committed by the government and military and get them to be accountable? In the end a crime is a crime even if the evidence was stolen from Top Secret files... I don't expect Assange to get a public fair trail in the US as well.
|
On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me.
Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials?
Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism?
|
|
|
On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism?
Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information.
And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters.
A story about the NDA, for reference.
https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/
|
On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism? Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/
I think that's important to know about wikileaks to the degree it's verifiable, but I'm not sure if you think that invalidates it's work or warrants the US imprisoning him or Chelsea Manning based on your comment or if you're merely describing your concerns about their ethics?
|
On April 11 2019 18:37 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 12:22 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 12:15 Plansix wrote:
What Xdaunt is saying is once you run for President, your campaign is immune to any criminal investigation, regardless of evidence or probable cause. Even though congress members, the gang of 8, the DOJ and a series of Judges knew about and approved of these investigations taking place, the were still wrong because it investigated Trump. You know, you've had some remarkably thoughtless takes of my posts over the years, but this one takes the cake. Seriously, you need to stop mischaracterizing these investigations as the acts of rogue government agencies answerable to no one. They told people, including the leadership of your party in congress what was happening. I haven't mischaracterized anything. I've laid out tons of facts, all of which you willfully ignore just as you willfully misconstrue my posts such as you did above. It doesn't take a genius to see that an investigation predicated upon Russian collusion/conspiracy is bogus when none of the primary targets of the investigation is charged with anything related to Russian collusion/conspiracy. Particularly when investigative agents go on the record and swear to a court that they already have probable cause of such Russian collusion/conspiracy. This is about as simple of a deduction as 2+2=4, and it only touches upon a small slice of the known improprieties surrounding the investigation. This post doesn't even make sense. Just do make sure you understand what words mean, you do understand that an investigation is performed to determine the guilt or innocence of a party (at least in a criminal sense), and so an investigation that turns back a verdict of innocence is not 'bogus'? Indeed, you could argue that an investigation that turns back a verdict of innocence has done its job perfectly. A bit of introspection would do you good, XDaunt. You come across as a much less intelligent poster when you dive into this partisan nonsense.
Yes, I'm well aware that criminal investigations often come up empty. You are the one who is missing the point. Here is the key sentence from my post:
Particularly when investigative agents go on the record and swear to a court that they already have probable cause of such Russian collusion/conspiracy.
FBI/DOJ swore to a FISA court that they had probable cause (the standard for indictment) that Russian collusion/conspiracy with Trump campaign team members was occurring. In fact, they did it at least four times. It should raise major alarm bells that the allegations forming the basis of those FISA applications never showed up in any criminal indictments and that the underlying source for those applications -- the Steele dossier -- has proven to be false time and again.
So yeah, don't insult my intelligence. You simply need to get up to speed on what the real issues are.
|
On April 11 2019 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
the underlying source for those applications -- the Steele dossier -- has proven to be false time and again.. You can say it a million times.
Still won't make it true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
