Another Wikileaks release

[corporatejay]

The worst part about this is that this could lead to even more anti-privacy laws when it comes to ISPs etc..

[HPLovecraft]

And Operation Payback is back online on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/Anon_Operationn#

[HPLovecraft]

The two rape accusers just had their personal information posted on 4chan. Yikes, that won't be good for anyone!

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

The problem I have with Wikileaks is they have a large amount of unchecked power right now. Who is to say whether what they are releasing is true or not? They could completely fabricate something and the only organizations that could deny it are the government themselves. The same governments that will have lost the trust of the people following Wikileaks.

So it's not ok for Wikileaks to have unchecked power but it's ok for Governments to? Weather Wikileaks is releasing true information or not is beside the point. The idea is you're supposed to read it and come to your own conclusion. People are going to believe what they want to believe weather they have facts or not. This is why there are still people in the world who claim Evolution is bull crap but Creationism is real because God said so.

Now I'm not saying I agree with all the hacking that's going on or anything like that. I think it will end up doing more harm than good. However this is something that's been coming to pass for quite some time. Honestly if some of the governments in this world were open and honest, and weren't as corrupt as they have become they would have nothing to hide and a website like Wikileak's doesn't get started. And quite honestly the government is it's own worst enemy here. They are the ones making a big deal about it and it's drawing a lot of attention. They are going to have to be careful with how they proceed here because all of a sudden everyone's watching.

With the way the govenrments have responded to this whole ordeal I have a hard time believing some of this stuff isn't true. If it wasn't then there's hardly a deal made about it as governments around the world would just go about taking care of their people and ignoring what "Crazy conspiracy theorists are coming up with these days". But now they're worried. So worried that they are infringing upon peoples freedoms and will probably claim the ends justify the means. And when you start doing that you open yourself up to retaliation from the people who are going to feel the most oppressed.

With all of that said, this is all very interesting. One might even say it could even turn into a revolution of sorts. One might also say that this will die out after about 2 weeks and then everyone goes back to not caring about Wikileaks. Either way it should make for some interesting news for the next little while.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

The worst part about this is that this could lead to even more anti-privacy laws when it comes to ISPs etc..

Yep, stuff like this a pretty big bullet in the chamber when it comes time to show that such laws are reasonably necessary to combat a threat.

[T@T]

Expert says his "Poison Pill" or "Doomsday file" labeled "insurance.aes256." is impossible to crack.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/08/wik...ex.html?hpt=C1

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

So it's not ok for Wikileaks to have unchecked power but it's ok for Governments to? Weather Wikileaks is releasing true information or not is beside the point. The idea is you're supposed to read it and come to your own conclusion.

Problem is the way the government is acting not so much as what is being release that I have issues with. Now there are voices within the government who want Assange charged under the Espionage Act. Given that journists are protected under the act, the government is trying to label Assange as not a journalist... So apparently the government is going to get to decide he is not a journalist.

Slippery slope because when you have the state saying who is and who isn't allowed to report the news, its going to degrade into the press become the propaganda arm of the government at some point. US is hosting the 2011 free press event too... pft.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

[FlameOn]

Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon papers in the 70s supports Assange.
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/publ...-press-release

In case anyone is wondering what those are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Problem is the way the government is acting not so much as what is being release that I have issues with. Now there are voices within the government who want Assange charged under the Espionage Act. Given that journists are protected under the act, the government is trying to label Assange as not a journalist... So apparently the government is going to get to decide he is not a journalist.

Slippery slope because when you have the state saying who is and who isn't allowed to report the news, its going to degrade into the press become the propaganda arm of the government at some point. US is hosting the 2011 free press event too... pft.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

Agreed. It's completely ridiculous. Also that free press event is a pretty good laugh.

This whole thing reminds me of how children act. You know, Kid 1 goes up to Kid 2 and punches him in the face. Kid 2 punches Kid 1 back. Kid 1 goes around crying and complaining that he got hit. I'll let you decide which kid represents what.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yep, stuff like this a pretty big bullet in the chamber when it comes time to show that such laws are reasonably necessary to combat a threat.

Necessary? I think not... US should be tightening their own data security not enacting new laws for this.

Passing new laws does nothing but give the US government something else they can abuse. Given that they already the have extra-judicial means to pressure corporations, individuals and law enforcement domestic and foreign, what happens when you hand all these tools and new regulations to an administration thats does not want to be found doing something horribly wrong or illegal?

Examples of dirty administration incidents: watergate, Iran contra affair, pentagon papers, etc.

[CaramonLS]

The US should probably be worrying more about the fact that a private Oil company is ingrained/heavily influencing a foreign government than the dude who is releasing the material.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Problem is the way the government is acting not so much as what is being release that I have issues with. Now there are voices within the government who want Assange charged under the Espionage Act. Given that journists are protected under the act, the government is trying to label Assange as not a journalist... So apparently the government is going to get to decide he is not a journalist.

Slippery slope because when you have the state saying who is and who isn't allowed to report the news, its going to degrade into the press become the propaganda arm of the government at some point. US is hosting the 2011 free press event too... pft.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

You do understand that the "government" doesn't get to just label anyone as journalist or non-journalist for purposes of legal protection right? That's a task reserved for the courts, so unless you're willing to go to the extent of arguing that the "government" controls the decisions handed down by the courts you're way off base.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by valo403

You do understand that the "government" doesn't get to just label anyone as journalist or non-journalist for purposes of legal protection right? That's a task reserved for the courts, so unless you're willing to go to the extent of arguing that the "government" controls the decisions handed down by the courts you're way off base.

The US government is made up of three branches, the legislative, executive and judicial branches. These in theory are supposed to be three distinct and separate offices that make up one entity that is the federal government. In practices this isn't the case. Presidents can appoint supreme court judges and other people in the judiciary, etc. You can't always expect the judicial to be impartial to the will of the executive that got them their jobs.

Given human nature and quid pro quo attitudes that tend to prevale everywhere, I don't think I'm that far off base. There are plenty of examples in the world where the courts are manipulated by the executive branch of the government. Just look it up.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

The US government is made up of three branches, the legislative, executive and judicial branches. These in theory are supposed to be three distinct and separate offices that make up one entity that is the federal government. In practices this isn't the case. Presidents can appoint supreme court judges and other people in the judiciary, etc. You can't always expect the judicial to be impartial to the will of the executive that got them their jobs.

Given human nature and quid pro quo attitudes that tend to prevale everywhere, I don't think I'm that far off base. There are plenty of examples in the world where the courts are manipulated by the executive branch of the government. Just look it up.

So because there are and have been corrupt judiciaries there will be in the US? Or it's at least reasonable to believe that could possibly occur? That's the argument?

Yes the President can appoint Supreme Court justices, and they're vetted by the Senate. They're questioned and rejected over the smallest of detail based on partisan interests or general feelings that they're unqualified to hold the position. Once appointed they're there for life, there is absolutely no benefit to pleasing the President that appointed them. Even if there was, there is rarely more than 2 justices who are serving the court during the Presidency that put them forth, and that gets you the oh so powerful minority opinion.

Do you have any examples of manipulation of the judicial branch by the executive? And don't give me Angola, we're talking about the US legal system here. There are many examples of the judicial branch making decisions that were directly counter to the position the executive branch wanted.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Necessary? I think not... US should be tightening their own data security not enacting new laws for this.

Passing new laws does nothing but give the US government something else they can abuse. Given that they already the have extra-judicial means to pressure corporations, individuals and law enforcement domestic and foreign, what happens when you hand all these tools and new regulations to an administration thats does not want to be found doing something horribly wrong or illegal?

Examples of dirty administration incidents: watergate, Iran contra affair, pentagon papers, etc.

I have no doubt this is what will unfold with the Wikileaks scandal (if you want to call it that).

Everything the U.S. media hypes results in a power grab by big business and big governemnt, all under the guise of "safety" or "security".....

It seems like the political establishment in America really wants to have strict control of the internet, especially if you listen to guys like Joe Lieberman and Jay Rockefeller...

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you have any examples of manipulation of the judicial branch by the executive? And don't give me Angola, we're talking about the US legal system here. There are many examples of the judicial branch making decisions that were directly counter to the position the executive branch wanted.

There are also examples of the judicary taking exactly the position the executive branch wanted them to take. Don't just blindly believe that the US legal system is perfect. In fact something questionable like this happened in the past decade. Take for example the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld.

In the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, a three judge panel upheld then President George Bush's decision to create special military tribunals to judge alleged terrorists and deny them protection under the Geneva convention. Judge John Roberts cast the deciding vote on this panel. At the same time he was deliberating on this panel he was being interviewed for a seat on the supreme court. His impartiality in this case can be reasonably questioned under the federal law on judicial disqualification. Four days later after casting his vote, Judge John Roberts gets his supreme court seat.

Decision didn't stop there, Judge Roberts went on to rule that the Geneva convention does not apply to Al-Qaeda members. A third judge disagreed so it was Roberts that cast the deciding vote here too. So... Roberts cast the deciding vote in an overwhelmly important issue to the executive as he was being nominated to the supreme court. Hm.

How is that not manipulation of the judiciary by the executive branch? Roberts should have recused himself from the panel altogether but chose not to and ends up being greatly rewarded for his efforts. These are from LA times articles from 2005. Look them up. All I'm saying is if the executive wants something pushed through they can probably find one way or another to do it.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by valo403

So because there are and have been corrupt judiciaries there will be in the US? Or it's at least reasonable to believe that could possibly occur? That's the argument?

Thats not the only argument. Judges really just apply the rules, they don't make them... so if there are enough people in the executive and legislative branches pissed off, which there are a lot, they could just amend the acts and specify what qualifies as a journalist and the judiciary would just have to carry it out.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

There are also examples of the judicary taking exactly the position the executive branch wanted them to take. Don't just blindly believe that the US legal system is perfect. In fact something questionable like this happened in the past decade. Take for example the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld.

In the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, a three judge panel upheld then President George Bush's decision to create special military tribunals to judge alleged terrorists and deny them protection under the Geneva convention. Judge John Roberts cast the deciding vote on this panel. At the same time he was deliberating on this panel he was being interviewed for a seat on the supreme court. His impartiality in this case can be reasonably questioned under the federal law on judicial disqualification. Four days later after casting his vote, Judge John Roberts gets his supreme court seat.

Decision didn't stop there, Judge Roberts went on to rule that the Geneva convention does not apply to Al-Qaeda members. A third judge disagreed so it was Roberts that cast the deciding vote here too. So... Roberts cast the deciding vote in an overwhelmly important issue to the executive as he was being nominated to the supreme court.

How is that not manipulation of the judiciary by the executive branch? Roberts should have recused himself from the panel altogether but chose not to and ends up being greatly rewarded for his efforts. These are from LA times articles from 2005. Look them up. All I'm saying is if the executive wants something pushed through they can probably find one way or another to do it.

You're also comparing a 3 judge tribunal to the Supreme Court, which completely disregards the protections that I listed above.

BTW, when Hamdan reached the Supreme Court guess what the outcome was?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Thats not the only argument. Judges really just apply the rules, they don't make them... so if there are enough people in the executive and legislative branches pissed off, which there are a lot, they could just amend the acts and specify what qualifies as a journalist and the judiciary would just have to carry it out.

That's a completely different argument. You're arguing judicial control by the executive on one hand and purely legislative action on the other.

And yes, the legislative branch could go ahead and repeal the First Amendment, that's part of the US democratic system. However, they could not simply write laws that dictate what a journalist is without risking stepping on the First Amendment, and guess who would decide that?

The notion that Judges simply apply the rules may fit in traffic court, but at a level like the Supreme Court that's incredibly inaccurate. The Supreme Court is focused on interpreting complex legal situations with the decisions having broad impacts. These aren't simple situations to which a particular law, or any law at all, necessarily applies. That's how cases get to the Supreme Court.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're also comparing a 3 judge tribunal to the Supreme Court, which completely disregards the protections that I listed above.

BTW, when Hamdan reached the Supreme Court guess what the outcome was?

No... I'm rightfully pointing out there are flaws in the system. Anything that can be build can be broken. Any system no matter how well thought out will have it flaws. Every person has a price. You are the one comparing the three judge panel to the supreme court.

If the government really wants something changed in a law, it'll happen one way or another, shady means or not. Amendments to law happen all the time. I'm done arguing with you in any case.