|
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 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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?
I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US.
Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets.
|
On April 12 2019 00:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Good thing you don't have to rely upon me. The evidence speaks for itself. That you're not intrepid enough to look at it isn't my problem.
But lucky for you, you don't really have to look at it. The key point that your side loves obfuscate is that it was always the duty of the FBI/DOJ to prove that the Steele dossier was true before they used it to support a FISA application. And the testimony on this point is unequivocal: they never did. That Mueller was never able to corroborate any of the Steele dossier allegations or charge a single person for anything related to the Steele dossier is simply the cherry on top of that shit sundae.
I keep warning you guys. You gotta dig into the details.
|
On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets.
I didn't mean to say you did.
But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly.
I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published.
You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information.
|
Oh and meanwhile a republican proposal to make abortion a death penalty crime in Texas.
source
I’m sorry but those people are just god damn awful.
|
On April 12 2019 00:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Oh and meanwhile a republican proposal to make abortion a death penalty crime in Texas. sourceI’m sorry but those people are just god damn awful.
I think that is intended as a way of saying "well if the death penalty is so bad why are you giving babies the death penalty? Holy fuck I am so wise I am literally socrates"
This is basically the work of 6 trailer parks coming together to find their new genius idea
|
On April 12 2019 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Oh and meanwhile a republican proposal to make abortion a death penalty crime in Texas. sourceI’m sorry but those people are just god damn awful. I think that is intended as a way of saying "well if the death penalty is so bad why are you giving babies the death penalty? Holy fuck I am so wise I am literally socrates"
While they're at it, why not be consistent and propose the death penalty for government executioners for taking lives? That's what Yahweh would have wanted, a death cascade.
|
On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information.
No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government.
I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated.
|
GH is accidentally doing the very thing that makes me dislike a lot of liberals and its the accidental hypocrisy that permeates their belief system.
If you chastise Trump for having no real plan on any issue just huge promises with no clear vision or way to implement them, but then support Bernie who has large promises with no clear and honest way to pay for them (they are just liberal promises instead) then your position on honesty is disingenuous at best.
In this case if you chastise Trump for at best inviting a foreign power to help him get elected and at worst working with them to do so (or something in between), then you defend Assange who likely is actively working with Russia to acquire and distribute information then you never cared about the former at all and just wanted to theow mud at a R.
|
I think GH and others have seen beyond the “how are we going to pay for it” argument to the reality that we pay for a lot of things without know how we will raise funds for them. Like this really expansive military.
|
On April 12 2019 00:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information. No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government. I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated.
I'm reasonably confident no major publications provide a complete picture. I think those are good and fair questions to ask of a publication (bylines are a bit different given a history of not just imprisonment, but torture and assassination of real dissenters in the US, but when reasonable I think it's a fair expectation) though I'm not of the opinion your argument is about justice and not vengeance.
On April 12 2019 00:43 Adreme wrote:
GH is accidentally doing the very thing that makes me dislike a lot of liberals and its the accidental hypocrisy that permeates their belief system.
If you chastise Trump for having no real plan on any issue just huge promises with no clear vision or way to implement them, but then support Bernie who has large promises with no clear and honest way to pay for them (they are just liberal promises instead) then your position on honesty is disingenuous at best.
In this case if you chastise Trump for at best inviting a foreign power to help him get elected and at worst working with them to do so (or something in between), then you defend Assange who likely is actively working with Russia to acquire and distribute information then you never cared about the former at all and just wanted to theow mud at a R.
I'm going to need a quote to even know what you're talking about?
But MMT or MIC cuts + taxing wealth + removing profit from several industries, can pay for everything Bernie wants and then some.
|
On April 12 2019 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:29 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information. No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government. I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated. I'm reasonably confident no major publications provide a complete picture. I think those are good and fair questions to ask of a publication (bylines are a bit different given a history of not just imprisonment, but torture and assassination of real dissenters in the US, but when reasonable I think it's a fair expectation) though I'm not of the opinion your argument is about justice and not vengeance. Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:43 Adreme wrote:
GH is accidentally doing the very thing that makes me dislike a lot of liberals and its the accidental hypocrisy that permeates their belief system.
If you chastise Trump for having no real plan on any issue just huge promises with no clear vision or way to implement them, but then support Bernie who has large promises with no clear and honest way to pay for them (they are just liberal promises instead) then your position on honesty is disingenuous at best.
In this case if you chastise Trump for at best inviting a foreign power to help him get elected and at worst working with them to do so (or something in between), then you defend Assange who likely is actively working with Russia to acquire and distribute information then you never cared about the former at all and just wanted to theow mud at a R.
I'm going to need a quote to even know what you're talking about? But MMT + MIC cuts + taxing wealth + removing profit from several industries, can pay for everything Bernie wants and then some.
I do ask why a publication like NPR or the Times wouldn’t provide some information. But the difference is that their reporters exist in the US and have told people why they do specific things. They are transparent about their process, who does what and why they do it. The NPR team that covers politics answers questions from listeners all the time. And people are free to come to their own judgments based on that information. The same is not true for Wikileaks and that leads to judgments based on the lack of information and why they are unwilling to provide it.
|
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
On April 12 2019 00:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information. No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government. I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated.
I think this is reasonable, as far as I can tell you're merely holding Wikileaks themselves to standards in a 'who guards the guards' kind of sense.
I have a large degree of skepticism when many other people hold some of these positions, because coincidentally they only started to hold those positions when Wikileaks started going against their guys.
I think it's fine not to have a byline in certain ways, it isn't really justifiable to not have accountability in who is paying, and paying for what, 100% there though..
On the byline thing I think it can be useful in divorcing messenger from the message anyway, and in the case of someone like Wikileaks there's also the issue of certain reprisals. So I'm kind of torn on that particular one. With it just being 'Wikileaks', putting this out as a united front can be seen as more 'neutral' in a sense. Instead of people going 'well x writer is a leftist so this is biased', or dismissing stuff based on assumed bias of individuals. It's easier to insulate from that slightly by putting stuff out just as the organisation, especially when for a while Wikileaks were kind of vaguely felt to be neutral/crusaders for transparency (not necessarily correctly mind)
Again, I'm torn on that particular one, I think there are pretty good arguments for either.
I agree with many of the criticisms of Wikileaks you and others have made. The solution there is either for Wikileaks to get its own house in order and improve in those areas, or for something new and similar to appear that is better.
I'm not sure if you yanks are familiar with football leaks over here (soccer for you plebs), it seems to be being done in the correct way. We're not really sure who the guy is, exactly how he got the literal millions of documents pertaining to European football or various other things. Thus far the only stuff that's come out is legitimate public interest, because Der Spiegel in Germany are going through it and sifting salacious gossip from legitimate stories. Much like the Guardian and others Stateside I can't recall did with some of their Wikileaks stories back in the day.
Unlike many I still have a lot of faith that decent traditional media can do, and do do good old-fashioned traditional journalism, and should be the gateway between giant information dumps, and what actually enters the public realm, precisely because they are accountable and do have to adhere to certain standards.
You may however need a Wikileaks, or something like it when it comes to actually getting some of that information in the first place, especially if its stuff that pertains to national security.
|
On April 12 2019 00:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:29 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 00:03 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I never said the US government was justified in their actions when it came to Manning. She also stole information that was deemed to be classified, which could have put people at risk in ways we are not fully aware of. That is always a risk when leaking this sort of information. She knowingly broke the law, so she should have received some level of punishment, but her sentence and treatment while being incarcerated was barbaric and a stain on the US. Assange is a different story. He encouraged her to steal information and offered to provide aid. It is unclear if he ever followed through. I don’t know if he committed other crimes while trying to obtained leaked information, like offering assistance to people trying to steal information. But the only way I would be even mildly ok with Assange is if he overtly said he would never assist people in stealing government secrets and would only help them publish those secrets. I didn't mean to say you did. But it does seem you're appealing to/supporting the process and legal system while lamenting what that meant in reality if I'm understanding correctly. I don't mean to be a pest but I'm still unclear on whether you're taking the position that the ethical concerns you point out about Wikileaks invalidates their work. Particularly what they've published. You're not challenging the veracity of their publishing, but taking issue with their methods of procuring what they publish and that they should all be punished if it's found they did what they were accused. If that's inaccurate just let me know, but it helps me understand the context of your other posts by having that information. No, I am not challenging the veracity. I am questioning the intent of the publication. And if I am being provided a complete picture. I question if someone paid Wikileaks to release information they had. Or paid them not to release other information. Or if they paid someone to steal information from a specific government. I don’t treat Wikileaks any different than I treat a traditional news publication. If articles don’t have bylines, I don’t trust them. If I can’t figure out how that publication pays its employees and funds its works, I don’t trust them. I might read what they say, but it is always through the context that what I am reading was released for a reason that is being obfuscated. I'm reasonably confident no major publications provide a complete picture. I think those are good and fair questions to ask of a publication (bylines are a bit different given a history of not just imprisonment, but torture and assassination of real dissenters in the US, but when reasonable I think it's a fair expectation) though I'm not of the opinion your argument is about justice and not vengeance. On April 12 2019 00:43 Adreme wrote:
GH is accidentally doing the very thing that makes me dislike a lot of liberals and its the accidental hypocrisy that permeates their belief system.
If you chastise Trump for having no real plan on any issue just huge promises with no clear vision or way to implement them, but then support Bernie who has large promises with no clear and honest way to pay for them (they are just liberal promises instead) then your position on honesty is disingenuous at best.
In this case if you chastise Trump for at best inviting a foreign power to help him get elected and at worst working with them to do so (or something in between), then you defend Assange who likely is actively working with Russia to acquire and distribute information then you never cared about the former at all and just wanted to theow mud at a R.
I'm going to need a quote to even know what you're talking about? But MMT + MIC cuts + taxing wealth + removing profit from several industries, can pay for everything Bernie wants and then some. I do ask why a publication like NPR or the Times wouldn’t provide some information. But the difference is that their reporters exist in the US and have told people why they do specific things. They are transparent about their process, who does what and why they do it. The NPR team that covers politics answers questions from listeners all the time. And people are free to come to their own judgments based on that information. The same is not true for Wikileaks and that leads to judgments based on the lack of information and why they are unwilling to provide it.
I'm kinda trying to get at what judgments you're trying to make about Wikileaks based on your observations and comparisons to publications like NYT and NPR, which presumably reported what wiki exposed but bear no responsibility for the procurement?
I know CNN said it was illegal for citizens to read the Wikileaks publications and that they should get their information on them from CNN.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 12 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
I think GH and others have seen beyond the “how are we going to pay for it” argument to the reality that we pay for a lot of things without know how we will raise funds for them. Like this really expansive military.
Yes bit if you criticize spending like that but then want to do the same thing for say health care than the spending didn't bother you in the first place, only that it wasn't your program having money blindly thrown at it.
Also "tax the weathy" isn't a plan to pay for it. It's more a concept and the beauty of concepts is that you cannot really analyze the details to see how much money is actually raised and if it would work plus the effects it would have on the economy as a whole.
That isn't to say he never gets specific but when Bernie tries to get specific people analyze it and go "You have a 3 trillion dollar shortfall" and then he just ignores it and pretnds it doesn't exist (sort of like Trump when he gets information he doesn't want to hear).
|
On April 11 2019 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Julian Assange has been arrested. There were a time where he was something else than a pawn of Putin and somewhat a sympathetic figure but considering what wikileaks has done to get Trump elected and why, he can go screw himself. Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassyMeanwhile Russia has accused the UK of “strangling freedom” by doing so. Those guys have balls of steel. And before xDaunt accuses anyone to spread conspiracy theories:
Yes, we're all aware of what Mueller's team has alleged in other criminal indictments. But we'd be remiss to overlook the fact that Assange has not been indicted in connection with the DNC hack. The only hacking conspiracy alleged against Assange has to do with Manning. And keep in mind that Assange has always copped to helping Manning but has vehemently denied getting the DNC emails from Russia. These are rather curious facts in light of the narrative that Mueller pushed. There are lots of possible explanations for why Assange was not charged in connection with the DNC hack. But again, the timing of all of this is weird. The offense happened in 2010. Manning was convicted in 2013. Why did the DOJ wait until March 2018 to charge Assange? Why is the arrest happening now?
Regardless, the DOJ is about to squeeze Assange big time, so we're going to find out what happened soon enough.
|
On April 11 2019 21:04 GreenHorizons 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'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.
your reply flew under the radar for me, let me answer sufficently now 
you can prosecute people, you can prosecute groups of people, corporations etc... you cannot do that for whole governments or even countries - generally. case law may be very different here.
I agree that it's a damn shame people vying for power/money/whatever do the things they do to reach their goal, and get away with it more often than not. and morally I am with you, most people would be I imagine.
our in house lawyers would see it maybe differently, if the price is right 
you cannot in all honesty compare (primarily) legally what a country did during its lifetime and what Julian Assange. where would we get by going that route? Assange broke the law, he knew full well what he was releasing, and he made an enemy of the sole superpower by washing their dirty laundry out in the open.
and to add a bit which has been discussed here, I too think what Wikileaks did in the beginning - investigation and giving whistleblowers cover - is essential. they basically wanted to do something like journalism 2.0 for lack of a better word.
all the good, exciting and interesting stuff without the liability and responsibility. and that's where the problem starts. in a civilized society, no one should be above the law.
instead we need breathing room for whistleblowers and safeguards for them to come forward, especially in the public sector.
but then again, people in the Trump White House had to sign NDAs...lol
//edited for clarity.
|
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/
Reporters sell their stories all the time. Publications, the ones who pay reporters, compete to publish first because attention-worthy information is profitable.
You don’t trust unsigned work? Oh really? Do I have to go digging to find your defenses of anonymous sources? As usual, you seem to just be throwing an incoherent mixture of moralistic apothegms at the wall to see what sticks.
|
On April 12 2019 01:40 xDaunt wrote:Yes, we're all aware of what Mueller's team has alleged in other criminal indictments. But we'd be remiss to overlook the fact that Assange has not been indicted in connection with the DNC hack. The only hacking conspiracy alleged against Assange has to do with Manning. And keep in mind that Assange has always copped to helping Manning but has vehemently denied getting the DNC emails from Russia. These are rather curious facts in light of the narrative that Mueller pushed. There are lots of possible explanations for why Assange was not charged in connection with the DNC hack. But again, the timing of all of this is weird. The offense happened in 2010. Manning was convicted in 2013. Why did the DOJ wait until March 2018 to charge Assange? Why is the arrest happening now? Regardless, the DOJ is about to squeeze Assange big time, so we're going to find out what happened soon enough.
Hassnt he been wanted for along time now? Isn't that why he was hiding out in the embassy
|
On April 12 2019 01:44 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:40 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Julian Assange has been arrested. There were a time where he was something else than a pawn of Putin and somewhat a sympathetic figure but considering what wikileaks has done to get Trump elected and why, he can go screw himself. Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassyMeanwhile Russia has accused the UK of “strangling freedom” by doing so. Those guys have balls of steel. And before xDaunt accuses anyone to spread conspiracy theories: https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1116285599776899074 Yes, we're all aware of what Mueller's team has alleged in other criminal indictments. But we'd be remiss to overlook the fact that Assange has not been indicted in connection with the DNC hack. The only hacking conspiracy alleged against Assange has to do with Manning. And keep in mind that Assange has always copped to helping Manning but has vehemently denied getting the DNC emails from Russia. These are rather curious facts in light of the narrative that Mueller pushed. There are lots of possible explanations for why Assange was not charged in connection with the DNC hack. But again, the timing of all of this is weird. The offense happened in 2010. Manning was convicted in 2013. Why did the DOJ wait until March 2018 to charge Assange? Why is the arrest happening now? Regardless, the DOJ is about to squeeze Assange big time, so we're going to find out what happened soon enough. Hassnt he been wanted for along time now? Isn't that why he was hiding out in the embassy
He was wanted by Sweden for some sexual offense if I remember correctly, which is why he initially sought refuge at the embassy.
|
On April 12 2019 01:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote: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/ Reporters sell their stories all the time. Publications, the ones who pay reporters, compete to publish first because attention-worthy information is profitable. You don’t trust unsigned work? Oh really? Do I have to go digging to find your defenses of anonymous sources? As usual, you seem to just be throwing an incoherent mixture of moralistic apothegms at the wall to see what sticks.
Anonymous sources isn't the same thing as an anonymous article. The sources in articles may be anonymous to the reader, but not the reporter, along with the information being corroborated by multiple sources. This is the absolute basics of journalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
