Shuma i have come to the conclusion that you are a troll, congratulations on being so sucessful thus far.
You aren't the first one to call me that or congratulate me for it. Much like the rest though, you aren't looking very good doing it rather then answering any of the points I've raised (as you failed to do in your last post to me as well).
Although i may not be a man-of-the-yemen-town this does not change the fact that the people were lied to, like it or not in a country that is supposed to be a democracy the government should not lie to the people that it should be representing, even American air strikes on yemen approved targets would of been acceptable.
Idealism is great until you're country is in the midst of a civil war and is being used as a training camp for international terrorists. At that point idealism has basically just cost you the farm. You're quite right, they lied to their people, and by doing so they were endeavoring to protect them from themselves. This was the polite thing to do for the yemenese people, and the best thing to do for their government. We could have just told them that we were going to bomb these areas regardless of their wishes. Is that a good alternative? Or how about just letting these camps run for a few years unharassed while they plan and implement terrorist acts on civilians locally and abroad?
Good old dogmatic idealism! Getting people killed since biblical times.
Now what if americans were lied to like this? would that be acceptable in a western nation? no? then why should it be acceptable here, especially with the loss of civilian life.
The difference being that America is a western nation at peace with itself, not battling a fundamentalist insurgency and it doesn't have sizable infiltration from violent fundamentalist terrorists. The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
You are really not doing yourself any favors by calling me a troll then equivocating and making appeals to idealism that are utterly unrealistic.
Hmmm likely, then maybe it shouldent be toted as fact
If I was toting it as fact I wouldn't have used the word likely. Thats the entire point of what I just said.
Hmmm in regards to "toting it as fact" and "likely" since when was i refering to you, im sorry but when i reply to one of your posts with that sentiment then reply with what you said. Replying about what you said when im refering to another post entirely is nonsensical
Also in regards to the rest of what you said, i think i found your perfect characterization
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state.
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."
So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know
Hmmm in regards to "toting it as fact" and "likely" since when was i refering to you, im sorry but when i reply to one of your posts with that sentiment then reply with what you said. Replying about what you said when im refering to another post entirely is nonsensical
Then why did you respond to ahtman with something that I said?
Also in regards to the rest of what you said, i think i found your perfect characterization
Will you actually respond to one of my points in a fashion other then ad hominim and equivocation in this video?
:edit: guess not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
Thats not what I said and you reeaaaallly need to either learn some political history or stop trolling the thread. No one is impressed.
ShumaGorath wrote:Rights are defined and awarded by situation.
Gotcha. Not that I agree with this, but I still gotcha.
What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant.
C'mon. I've like you, Shuma, but you know better than to try that.
You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state.
So those born in different, poorer situations in different political climates should have different, more restricted, rights than those born into more priveliged situations? Or is it that you believe this is simply a reality, and that any attempt to do otherwise is somehow...wrong? (that's what I've garnered from your resonse so far).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
EDIT: For grammar.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
Thats not what I said and you reeaaaallly need to either learn some political history or stop trolling the thread. No one is impressed.
Hmmm in regards to "toting it as fact" and "likely" since when was i refering to you, im sorry but when i reply to one of your posts with that sentiment then reply with what you said. Replying about what you said when im refering to another post entirely is nonsensical
Then why did you respond to ahtman with something that I said?
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.
Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed
The CIA can neither deny or confirm. Even after Valerie Plame was outed guess what the CIA said? The CIA can neither deny or confirm. We aren't talking about whether an NFL player is being traded to another team.
is it that hard to follow? it also carries on from there
ShumaGorath wrote:
Also in regards to the rest of what you said, i think i found your perfect characterization
Will you actually respond to one of my points in a fashion other then ad hominim and equivocation in this video?
:edit: guess not.
That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon
ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
Thats not what I said and you reeaaaallly need to either learn some political history or stop trolling the thread. No one is impressed.
nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"
as you have said:
"You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."
So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know
Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.
That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon
Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).
nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"
Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
ShumaGorath wrote:Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.
AUSTRALIA!!!
No, wait...
New Zealand? They never seem to do anything wrong... bloody stinking kiwi goody two-shoes grumble grumble grumble
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."
So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know
Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.
That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon
Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).
nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"
Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
After 20 pages of "Burn the Heretic!" in one form or another, a discussion on Rights and their nature or whether they should be universally awarded is about as serious as it can get.
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."
So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know
Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.
That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon
Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).
nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"
Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.
And he wonders why i dont take him srsly
I'm done here, go take some ethics and phi classes for the rights bit, some current events classes for the yemen bit, and some debate classes so that you're better able to interface with other peoples arguments. Short of all that just get outside and talk to some real people. Regardless, I'm gonna let Emperors or Ahtman deal with whatever you're point is (you don't seem to actually have one, and while I can identify with that position, you also don't know what you're talking about).
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."
So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know
Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.
That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon
Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).
nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"
Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.
And he wonders why i dont take him srsly
I'm done here, go take some ethics and phi classes for the rights bit, some current events classes for the yemen bit, and some debate classes so that you're better able to interface with other peoples arguments. Short of all that just get outside and talk to some real people. Regardless, I'm gonna let Emperors or Ahtman deal with whatever you're point is (you don't seem to actually have one, and while I can identify with that position, you also don't know what you're talking about).
Later gator!
I dont take kindly to being told to go back to "world of warcraft" and to "get outside and talk to some real people" so i completely approve of this, feel free to come back when you can make valid arguments without personal attacks.
Also i apologize for beleiving that a country's people should have rights, should i sign the letter of apology along with the citizens of yemen? I mean for the naive assumption that they should be told the truth by their government in a time of turmoil, maybe as part of some misguided attempt to gain trust in the government?
Emperors Faithful wrote:So Gibbsey...what was your point again?
Being called things like "silly boy" and "go back to wow" really have no point in a thread like this and they kind of offend me.
"The CIA cant tell us" is not correct to use when accusing someone of being responsible for someones death.
That yemen citizens "have no rights" because their country has an insurgency is rediculous, expecially how since the country is a democracy the government only gains the right to govern through the people.
Being an ass is not a criminal offense nor can you extradite over it
Also Assange hasnt comitted treason (not a citizen) neither is he in violation of US espionage laws (no crime in american juristiction (if he violates it even if he was in american juristiction is a completely different agrument and one i dont want to get into))
And anything else i may have said has been lost in this thread by the repeat of the same old arguments and baseless assumptions/accusations
Gibbsey wrote:
That yemen citizens "have no rights" because their country has an insurgency is rediculous, expecially how since the country is a democracy the government only gains the right to govern through the people.
Which country? Because Yemen routinely scores in the lowest tier on all major democracy indexes.
Gibbsey wrote:
That yemen citizens "have no rights" because their country has an insurgency is rediculous, expecially how since the country is a democracy the government only gains the right to govern through the people.
Which country? Because Yemen routinely scores in the lowest tier on all major democracy indexes.
I have to agree with this, they have a long way to go and honestly they could slip in either direction. But to stretch it to "they have no rights"? even if the government is not willing to show any transparancy to its people why are wikileaks suddenly the bad guys to show them how they are being lied to?
Kanluwen wrote:
Where was the deflection, at all, there Dogma?
I asked you a question, and you asked an entirely different question in response, that's basically the definition of deflection.
And you're doing it again be asking "where the deflection was" when it is plain as day what was done. I mean, its possible that you simply don't know what you're doing, but that requires me to also accept that you are entirely incompetent, and I'm not ready to do that.
Kanluwen wrote:
But since apparently you're going to be a smug git:
I'm not the one that seems to struggle answering a simple question.
Kanluwen wrote:
The "means of a given person" is what they can reliably have access to without liquidating everything they own.
It's why when police officers, who haven't won the lottery or come into money, have suddenly started buying things like boats or expensive cars are looked at with suspicion.
That doesn't help you expose corruption in the diplomatic class. It isn't illegal to accept money from non-governmental sources.
You shouldn't consider politics to be analogically similar to police work.
But yeah, I was apparently right that the reason behind your hesitation in answering was the realization of how doing so weakened your position.
Gibbsey wrote:
I have to agree with this, they have a long way to go and honestly they could slip in either direction. But to stretch it to "they have no rights"? even if the government is not willing to show any transparancy to its people why are wikileaks suddenly the bad guys to show them how they are being lied to?
I really must protest. Wow is NOT "nice and simple" it is incredibly hard work, requiring teams of adventurers to work together, toiling in their efforts to finally end the threat to thee good citizens of Azeroth.
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
I think his point was the rights of a backward contry on the other side of the world dont matter to him compared to his nations dirty secrets
Dont get me wrong i agree with the strikes, i dont agree with the yemen citizens being lied to and surprizingly neither do they
OOOH Ninjad - "Rights are defined and awarded by situation. What should or should not be has historically been irrelevant. You have the rights of a democratic enlightened country when you don't have a large insurgency in your north and you aren't teetering on the status of a failed state."
So you lose rights when your country has an insurgency? good to know
Name a country thats had one where that didn't happen. Go ahead. Name one. You can cruise around with nieve idealism all you want, but thats not how the world actually works, and the world is run realistically, it doesn't fly on rainbows and unicorns.
That would require me to take you seriusly, and with the weak arguments thus far i cant see that happening any time soon
Weak arguments you are seemingly incapable of understanding (just as you've been unable to actually respond sensibly to anyone else in this thread either).
nope your point pretty much comes over as "they have insurgency they have no rights"
Rights are a social construct, during a civil war the rule of law and social niceties typically cease. Rights aren't real things, we make them up as we go along and they change from day to day. The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
I agree rights are not real things, they are a human construct, but this is one that a country that is democratically elected should provide. This is not a civil war this is an insurgency, if mexican cartels started invading texas and started hiding out there does that mean the people lose all rights?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: The sooner you realize that god isn't going to fly down to punish those who lie the sooner you're actually going to be able to interface successfully with the world. Until then you should probably stay on world of warcraft where everything is nice and simple.
Er, Shuma. There's a line somewhere around here.
And he wonders why i dont take him srsly
I'm done here, go take some ethics and phi classes for the rights bit, some current events classes for the yemen bit, and some debate classes so that you're better able to interface with other peoples arguments. Short of all that just get outside and talk to some real people. Regardless, I'm gonna let Emperors or Ahtman deal with whatever you're point is (you don't seem to actually have one, and while I can identify with that position, you also don't know what you're talking about).
Later gator!
I dont take kindly to being told to go back to "world of warcraft" and to "get outside and talk to some real people" so i completely approve of this, feel free to come back when you can make valid arguments without personal attacks.
Also i apologize for beleiving that a country's people should have rights, should i sign the letter of apology along with the citizens of yemen? I mean for the naive assumption that they should be told the truth by their government in a time of turmoil, maybe as part of some misguided attempt to gain trust in the government?
God I disagree just because I disagree. Rawr I am rite n' you are rong!!!!!!!! SEMANTICS OMG FALLACY (mod) shut up guys.............................RAWR I'M RITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here
loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here
Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.
loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here
Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.
loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here
Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.
Loki, that was a cruel and unnecessary remark that you aimed at Peter Wiggin
There fixed that typo
loki old fart wrote:"he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him"
All he needs to do is take up 40k, Then he should fit in really well here
Loki, that was a creul and unnecessary remark aimed that you aimed at Peter Wiggin.
Loki, that was a cruel and unnecessary remark that you aimed at Peter Wiggin
There fixed that typo
Peter Wiggin wrote:Hi, that was me....at like page 3 I think.
After reading MANY articles and looking up past case information I think it really is just a strange coincidence....and the "ties" that the girl has to the CIA are laughable at best. I'm a conspiracy believer, but at least look at the facts before screaming about the Tri Lateral Commision. lol
Lol @ being told to check the facts by you, given I've read almost all your posts since the beggining of the thread...
Please, do share those articles. The ties might be laughable like you say... yet there she was, and funnily enough, it happened with her. After she consented. But then said she retracted. The case was filed, and then reopened. He's given an international arrest warrant. And you call yourself a conspiracy believer
I'd say most posters here only care about the image of their country given what's hot in the news. And absolutely love the profissional profile (and absolutely impartial, of course) assesment that's been made of Assange, as well as the well-thought punishment for whatever crimes he might've commited.
Peter Wiggin wrote:
God I disagree just because I disagree. Rawr I am rite n' you are rong!!!!!!!! SEMANTICS OMG FALLACY (mod) shut up guys.............................RAWR I'M RITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah it did kind of turn into that, was also about 1:30 in the morning.
I still stand by my point that the citizens in Yemen do have a right to know about these things.
Also I think Emperors Faithful was refering to Shuma's "go back to world of warcraft" comment and while "and he wonders why i dont take him srsly" is a shameless dig at Shuma and i admit was inappropriate, what he originally said and how he replied it came across as extreamly condesending
Also "OMG FALLACY" i guess is refering to "mexican cartels started invading texas" as i said i was tired but it does bring up my point that even if your country does have an insurgency it doesent automatically mean the citizens no longer have any rights.
Kanluwen wrote:
Where was the deflection, at all, there Dogma?
I asked you a question, and you asked an entirely different question in response, that's basically the definition of deflection.
And you're doing it again be asking "where the deflection was" when it is plain as day what was done. I mean, its possible that you simply don't know what you're doing, but that requires me to also accept that you are entirely incompetent, and I'm not ready to do that.
So using an example and asking a rhetorical question is "deflection"?
Huh. Interesting.
Dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
But since apparently you're going to be a smug git:
I'm not the one that seems to struggle answering a simple question.
Not really. It just seems you're purposely being obtuse and trying to find deflection where there is none.
Kanluwen wrote:
The "means of a given person" is what they can reliably have access to without liquidating everything they own.
It's why when police officers, who haven't won the lottery or come into money, have suddenly started buying things like boats or expensive cars are looked at with suspicion.
That doesn't help you expose corruption in the diplomatic class. It isn't illegal to accept money from non-governmental sources.
It is when you're accepting money from private companies that are bidding for jobs.
You shouldn't consider politics to be analogically similar to police work.
I'm not. I'm saying that corruption is corruption, and it's actually not that hard to find it when you're looking.
But yeah, I was apparently right that the reason behind your hesitation in answering was the realization of how doing so weakened your position.
I've answered three different times. There's no hesitation. It didn't weaken my position either.
Really quite a stretch. I'd go so far as to call the entire article a fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?
I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.
We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.
Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.
If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.
If you agree with the bolded portion (as I do for the large part although I recognize the necessity of certain things being secret) then your entire argument is null and void.
Plz don't use personal opinions as a basis for objective statements.
Find an objective precidence that says other countries have the right to know what our government is carrying out covertly then.
I'll give you a couple of objective things that say that we don't even have the right to know what our government is doing.
The NATO Classified Information Act and the Classified Information Procedures Act, which concerns classified information and legal procedures.
CIPA was actually enacted to prevented 'graymail' which is when the prosecuted blackmails the government with classified information that he/she may know.
If I recall Assange said that he had a cache of classified documents he would release if he did get imprisoned, hmmm, sounds like graymail to me.
The cables were important to government relations and national security, should we use diplomats for espionage, maybe not, but that's just an opinion I guess. The fact is we did and the information they gathered was for national security use and for foreign relations use, which means that as a matter of fact the government has the right to deem them classified.
In another fact, the Freedom of Information Act exempts any information deemed classified by executive order or pertaining to foreign policy/national security are exempt from the need to disclose that information.
The specialist that released the information violated his contract by giving this information away and in fact it can be considered theft if not some other criminal act. If it is deemed as a criminal act then Assange knowingly accepted the cables even though they were 'stolen'. This means that Assange could face criminal charges because he could be seen as an accomplice.
There are some facts for you.
The Yemenese do not have the same rights as an american citizen. Our Constitution doesn't apply to areas outside of our boundaries unless its for an american diplomat.
halonachos wrote:
Find an objective precidence that says other countries have the right to know what our government is carrying out covertly then.
I'll give you a couple of objective things that say that we don't even have the right to know what our government is doing.
This is based entirely on opinion, if we have a right to know what our government is doing. Almost always this should remain hidden with internal affairs and regulation keeping everything in check, but in some extream cases do you not agree that information should be revealed of criminal activity?
halonachos wrote:
The NATO Classified Information Act and the Classified Information Procedures Act, which concerns classified information and legal procedures.
CIPA was actually enacted to prevented 'graymail' which is when the prosecuted blackmails the government with classified information that he/she may know.
If I recall Assange said that he had a cache of classified documents he would release if he did get imprisoned, hmmm, sounds like graymail to me.
I think Assange/ Wikileaks didnt think this through correctly, it would be hilarious if he was charged on greymail (can you be charged on that?) but nothing else.
halonachos wrote:
The cables were important to government relations and national security, should we use diplomats for espionage, maybe not, but that's just an opinion I guess. The fact is we did and the information they gathered was for national security use and for foreign relations use, which means that as a matter of fact the government has the right to deem them classified.
In another fact, the Freedom of Information Act exempts any information deemed classified by executive order or pertaining to foreign policy/national security are exempt from the need to disclose that information.
True these documents should never have been revealed and should probebly have been directed to some internal investigation, but if there is noone who is going to be held responsible for some of the more serious things then dont you agree that maybe the information should be released so those responsible can be held accountable?
halonachos wrote:
The specialist that released the information violated his contract by giving this information away and in fact it can be considered theft if not some other criminal act. If it is deemed as a criminal act then Assange knowingly accepted the cables even though they were 'stolen'. This means that Assange could face criminal charges because he could be seen as an accomplice.
Assange cannot be seen as an accomplice unless he was involved in the stealing of the documents/ told someone to steal the documents, also there would need to be some activity on his part within US jurisdiction (telling someone go steal these documents does infact fall under US jurisdiction but there is not evidence of this happening) for him to fall under US laws otherwise he falls under international laws/ country's laws he was in.
halonachos wrote:
There are some facts for you.
The Yemenese do not have the same rights as an american citizen. Our Constitution doesn't apply to areas outside of our boundaries unless its for an american diplomat.
My main concern with this is what right do we have to deny them this information? If civilian deaths are caused by another country and then covered up dont you think that they "should" have the right to know? Wikileaks has provided them that privilage of information, what right does America / Yemen government have to deny them this information?
I don't understand what you mean with your first response, the one starting with "This is based on opinion...".
If you could explain, that would be great. As to your other responses.
True, but an accomplice is someone who helps another person carry out something illegal.
By releasing these documents, Assange helped the specialist carry out an illegal action. While Assange isn't an american citizen I'm sure that there are ways the american legal system can get its claws into him.
As to your last statement, Wikileaks did provide them with privilege of information but it was not their right to do so in the first place.
I could give you somebody else's car so you have the privilege to drive it, but it wasn't my place to give you the car in the first place.
So as to the right to deny information, the government has every right it wants to deny the information to others.
Should it deny information, maybe so maybe not. Unfortunately its only a "should" and not a "has to".
Having diplomats spy is not a war crime, collateral damage is not a war crime, and whenever a soldier decided to murder a civilian in cold blood we've dealt with them. Do we choose to broadcast that fact, no. The only exceptions we've had are when something truly heinous goes down such as the rape/murder of a family, which is close to something that happened that put a soldier in prison.
Assange just had a political agenda and decided to put up classified information, information that has done harm to foreign relations and possibly to the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, from what I see there's a slim chance that he can be charged. It can be almost proven that he knowingly distributed information that would harm the government(cache remark and maybe some other things they could find).
Slim chance of doing this...legally.
Like I said, I believe that Assange isn't going to come out of this. Maybe alive, but we never know seeing as though prisons are kind of dangerous you know.
It won't hopefully come to that, but like I said we never know.
To summarise, despite US gov murmurings, it is unlikely that Assange actually committed any crime.
Only once has the US government ever prosecuted a journalist for revealing secrets and the case failed.
IMO the US government would complete fools to murder Assange. All that would happen is that Wikileaks would go on without a figurehead, but with a burning sense of revenge, and the next thing to be leaked would probably be the murder plot.
Kilkrazy wrote:To summarise, despite US gov murmurings, it is unlikely that Assange actually committed any crime.
Only once has the US government ever prosecuted a journalist for revealing secrets and the case failed.
IMO the US government would complete fools to murder Assange. All that would happen is that Wikileaks would go on without a figurehead, but with a burning sense of revenge, and the next thing to be leaked would probably be the murder plot.
Actually, part of the wikileaks crew is leaving to found another site, one "that would release documents, but without the political agenda" quoeting the news channel on in front of me right now.
Also, you have your summary and I have mine. It says that chances are slim, but it could happen.
halonachos wrote:I don't understand what you mean with your first response, the one starting with "This is based on opinion...".
First sentance was jsut my opinion.
the rest
Almost always this should remain hidden with internal affairs and regulation keeping everything in check, but in some extream cases do you not agree that information should be revealed of criminal activity?
Most of the time these kinds of documents should be kept secret
My question is do you not agree that their may be cases where internal affairs may not want/cant bring a person to justice for comitting a crime, or a serious enought breach of human rights. And in such cases that the information should be released? It is irrelevant if it makes the country look bad, what matters is making sure the governments conduct is appropriate and does not violate any of our right, or anyone elses?
Also
My opinion that the Yemen people have a right to know who killed those civilians, even if it was in a missile strike on terrorists, is based on basic human rights. Many people will argue that there is no such thing as rights only privilages in which case what gives anyone the right to stop wikileaks from giving the Yemen people these privilages.
"In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security"
"In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy."
So the US for extradition would have to "prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security"
Judging by his contact with the US embassy and the Secretary of Defence's comments that last bit would prove hard to prove
"In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security"
To quote Shuma from earlier...
Of course they refused to help redact information from classified documents they didn't want released to begin with.
"In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy."
So the US for extradition would have to "prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security"
Judging by his contact with the US embassy and the Secretary of Defence's comments that last bit would prove hard to prove
Judging by his contact with the US embassy it's embarrassingly easy to prove, actually.
The fact that he went to them asking for help redacting the documents for "having no interest in hurting US national security" says it all.
Gibbsey wrote:My question is do you not agree that their may be cases where internal affairs may not want/cant bring a person to justice for comitting a crime, or a serious enought breach of human rights. And in such cases that the information should be released? It is irrelevant if it makes the country look bad, what matters is making sure the governments conduct is appropriate and does not violate any of our right, or anyone elses?
Also
Human rights don't include the right to information, speech is included there somewhere, but not information.
As to the quoted question, this is exactly what CIPA covers. Governments may have classified information that pertains to a murder trial and if so the courts will have to prove that the classified information is necessary for the trial. If it is necessary then it is shared with the legal personnel and only the necessary legal personnel(judge, ombudsman, etc) and not to the public. Similar to the HIPAA act that allows the release of some medical information(such as a potential epidemic) but prevents the release of most of the information.
An example would be this: John Doe comes to the emergency room suffering from a condition caused by taking cocaine, John Doe came on his own with no police officers. Well the cool thing is, the hospital personnel cannot call the police to tell them that a person has taken cocaine nor can the police break into the hospital and arrest the man. If the police bring the man to the ER then they already know and have probably arrested him(a side note, if your thinking about doing cocaine keep in mind that your heart rate will go up, your blood pressure goes down, and you get a catheter put into your urethra if you have a bad reaction. )
So yes, there are times when classification is removed for a court trial but the information is not released to the public only to the necessary people.
Well, at least Kevin Rudd has shown his support for an Australian citizen. I would have felt pretty gak about this country if we let one of our own out to dry on the whim of the US.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, at least Kevin Rudd has shown his support for an Australian citizen. I would have felt pretty gak about this country if we let one of our own out to dry on the whim of the US.
A notable reversal on earlier statements made by Julia Gillard.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, at least Kevin Rudd has shown his support for an Australian citizen. I would have felt pretty gak about this country if we let one of our own out to dry on the whim of the US.
A notable reversal on earlier statements made by Julia Gillard.
Yes, there is that. Although, Rudd said that he was given no such recommendations. Perhaps this isn't the political showboating I initially thought it was.
"In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security"
To quote Shuma from earlier...
Of course they refused to help redact information from classified documents they didn't want released to begin with.
Of course they would refuse to remove sensitive information from their own leaked classified documents it makes perfect sense!
Kanluwen wrote:
"In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy."
So the US for extradition would have to "prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security"
Judging by his contact with the US embassy and the Secretary of Defence's comments that last bit would prove hard to prove
Judging by his contact with the US embassy it's embarrassingly easy to prove, actually.
The fact that he went to them asking for help redacting the documents for "having no interest in hurting US national security" says it all.
So because he was redacting information to hide sources, and decides "well maybe we miss something.... hey i know we could get the US to help" automatically means he's guilty? How would this be easy to prove? he's redacting information so the release is not harmful and even asked the US embassy if they wanted a part in redacting information?
Wikileaks thinks of its self as a news organization/ whistle blowing site, there are certain protection for Journalists where classified documents can be used even if they were illegally obtained.
Wikileaks could be charged if it was releasing agents names, or if its actions were to cause serious damage.
Wikileaks thinks of its self as a news organization/ whistle blowing site, there are certain protection for Journalists where classified documents can be used even if they were illegally obtained.
Wikileaks could be charged if it was releasing agents names, or if its actions were to cause serious damage.
I don't care if they think they are space pope, they gave up military secrets. They are spies. СМЕРть Шпионам
Gibbsey wrote:My question is do you not agree that their may be cases where internal affairs may not want/cant bring a person to justice for comitting a crime, or a serious enought breach of human rights. And in such cases that the information should be released? It is irrelevant if it makes the country look bad, what matters is making sure the governments conduct is appropriate and does not violate any of our right, or anyone elses?
Also
Human rights don't include the right to information, speech is included there somewhere, but not information.
As to the quoted question, this is exactly what CIPA covers. Governments may have classified information that pertains to a murder trial and if so the courts will have to prove that the classified information is necessary for the trial. If it is necessary then it is shared with the legal personnel and only the necessary legal personnel(judge, ombudsman, etc) and not to the public. Similar to the HIPAA act that allows the release of some medical information(such as a potential epidemic) but prevents the release of most of the information.
An example would be this: John Doe comes to the emergency room suffering from a condition caused by taking cocaine, John Doe came on his own with no police officers. Well the cool thing is, the hospital personnel cannot call the police to tell them that a person has taken cocaine nor can the police break into the hospital and arrest the man. If the police bring the man to the ER then they already know and have probably arrested him(a side note, if your thinking about doing cocaine keep in mind that your heart rate will go up, your blood pressure goes down, and you get a catheter put into your urethra if you have a bad reaction. )
So yes, there are times when classification is removed for a court trial but the information is not released to the public only to the necessary people.
I see what your getting at. In this case civilians have died rightly or wrongly, Wikileaks seem to beleive that the people should have a right (Privilage, there is no such thing as rights (univeral ones anyway) ) to know who killed them, and while the bombings wre probebly justified (amazingly terrorists live with their families and going in on the ground would of been impractical and more people could of died) to say that the government has a right to lie to its people about something to me (and aparently wikileaks) is wrong.
Oh if you want to see what im talking about when i say univeral rights do not exist search for george carlin on rights, absolutely hilarious. His no rights/ unlimited rights argument is good "i beleive i have unlimited rights, that means i can do anything i want. But, if i do something you dont like, you have the right to kill me. Your not going to find a fairer deal than that"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats bs. He's redacting information that is illegally obtained and illegal to read.
He's already stated his motives and they are some knight's they are to harm the US. Take him out.
I dont really think that would help US foreign policy though....
Wikileaks thinks of its self as a news organization/ whistle blowing site, there are certain protection for Journalists where classified documents can be used even if they were illegally obtained.
Wikileaks could be charged if it was releasing agents names, or if its actions were to cause serious damage.
I don't care if they think they are space pope, they gave up military secrets. They are spies. СМЕРть Шпионам
Although "No single US law makes it a crime specifically to disclose classified government documents"
Peter Wiggin wrote:Hi, that was me....at like page 3 I think.
After reading MANY articles and looking up past case information I think it really is just a strange coincidence....and the "ties" that the girl has to the CIA are laughable at best. I'm a conspiracy believer, but at least look at the facts before screaming about the Tri Lateral Commision. lol
Lol @ being told to check the facts by you, given I've read almost all your posts since the beggining of the thread...
Please, do share those articles. The ties might be laughable like you say... yet there she was, and funnily enough, it happened with her. After she consented. But then said she retracted. The case was filed, and then reopened. He's given an international arrest warrant. And you call yourself a conspiracy believer
I'd say most posters here only care about the image of their country given what's hot in the news. And absolutely love the profissional profile (and absolutely impartial, of course) assesment that's been made of Assange, as well as the well-thought punishment for whatever crimes he might've commited.
Also, I think its interesting how many folks in America honestly don't seem to care about this at all. Most of the folks I talk to on a daily basis are simply concerned with feeding their family and paying the bills. Then again, to go by the internet comments folks in America want to shoot him in the balls. Funny how that works.
One thing that makes me laugh, is that most american posters seem more upset, that there diplomats look bad/stupid
Than that they get lied to on a daily basis
loki old fart wrote:One thing that makes me laugh, is that most american posters seem more upset, that there diplomats look bad/stupid
Than that they get lied to on a daily basis
Lied too about what? The cable leaks have yet to really show anything that the government wasn't already pretty straight foreword about. Hell, you guys should be more annoyed about a lying government then us considering what's been released so far.
loki old fart wrote:One thing that makes me laugh, is that most american posters seem more upset, that there diplomats look bad/stupid
Than that they get lied to on a daily basis
I don't give a flip about the politicians. I care greatly about the massive number of military secrets he put out. That earns him the 185 grain salute.
loki old fart wrote:One thing that makes me laugh, is that most american posters seem more upset, that there diplomats look bad/stupid
Than that they get lied to on a daily basis
I don't give a flip about the politicians. I care greatly about the massive number of military secrets he put out. That earns him the 185 grain salute.
loki old fart wrote:One thing that makes me laugh, is that most american posters seem more upset, that there diplomats look bad/stupid
Than that they get lied to on a daily basis
Lied too about what? The cable leaks have yet to really show anything that the government wasn't already pretty straight foreword about. Hell, you guys should be more annoyed about a lying government then us considering what's been released so far.
Nah we always get lied to you can tell when a politicians lying, there lips move
loki old fart wrote:One thing that makes me laugh, is that most american posters seem more upset, that there diplomats look bad/stupid
Than that they get lied to on a daily basis
Lied too about what? The cable leaks have yet to really show anything that the government wasn't already pretty straight foreword about. Hell, you guys should be more annoyed about a lying government then us considering what's been released so far.
Nah we always get lied to you can tell when a politicians lying, there lips move
obviously the correct response was to take a rhetorical comment literally and respond with a sarcastic link. C- for effort, D for originality, but your pedantry scores are off the charts!
Frazzled wrote:
I don't give a flip about the politicians. I care greatly about the massive number of military secrets he put out. That earns him the 185 grain salute.
What, you're not going to criticize the military men that leaked the secrets to WikiLeaks?
No, of course not, military people are inviolate.
What a joke.
If you want to throw around "treason" and "espionage" at least do it with consistency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
So using an example and asking a rhetorical question is "deflection"?
Huh. Interesting.
...Yes? Where did you study debate?
Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. It just seems you're purposely being obtuse and trying to find deflection where there is none.
Well, honestly, I'm being obtuse because my real criticism would extend beyond forum rules.
I don't have very much respect for anything that you have to say.
Kanluwen wrote:
It is when you're accepting money from private companies that are bidding for jobs.
That's a problem? Maybe those companies are the best contractors. Why not accept their money? To convince the idiot plebes?
Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not. I'm saying that corruption is corruption, and it's actually not that hard to find it when you're looking.
No, that's exactly what you're saying. You just said it again. Equating corruption in politics to corruption in police is to equate police and politics.
Kanluwen wrote:
I've answered three different times. There's no hesitation. It didn't weaken my position either.
No, you think that you've answered it, but you haven't. This is an example of why I have no respect for you.
loki old fart wrote:One thing that makes me laugh, is that most american posters seem more upset, that there diplomats look bad/stupid
Than that they get lied to on a daily basis
I don't give a flip about the politicians. I care greatly about the massive number of military secrets he put out. That earns him the 185 grain salute.
Kanluwen wrote:
So using an example and asking a rhetorical question is "deflection"?
Huh. Interesting.
...Yes? Where did you study debate?
I didn't. I also didn't study being a prick quite as much as you have, apparently.
Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. It just seems you're purposely being obtuse and trying to find deflection where there is none.
Well, honestly, I'm being obtuse because my real criticism would extend beyond forum rules.
I don't have very much respect for anything that you have to say.
And this is why it took you how many days to reply to this? Interesting.
See, now that? That's deflection.
Kanluwen wrote:
It is when you're accepting money from private companies that are bidding for jobs.
That's a problem? Maybe those companies are the best contractors. Why not accept their money? To convince the idiot plebes?
...Of course that's a fething problem, fool.
A politician who is in a position where he can give away jobs that contractors are bidding for should not ever be receiving money from companies that are bidding for that job.
Is it too complicated for you? Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon, maybe put some sparkles on it so your eye is drawn to it?
Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not. I'm saying that corruption is corruption, and it's actually not that hard to find it when you're looking.
No, that's exactly what you're saying. You just said it again. Equating corruption in politics to corruption in police is to equate police and politics.
No, I'm equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
It's not that complicated to understand.
Kanluwen wrote:
I've answered three different times. There's no hesitation. It didn't weaken my position either.
No, you think that you've answered it, but you haven't. This is an example of why I have no respect for you.
Oh no, I've answered it. It's not the answer you wanted, apparently so you continue to try to browbeat me with thinly veiled insults about this sbuject.
UN mulls internet regulation options
By John Hilvert on Dec 17, 2010 9:51 AM (17 hours ago)
Filed under Security
WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.
The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.
Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.
At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would to attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.
The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.
However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.
"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.
Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.
The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."
Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.
The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at ?the end of the year.
The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF]? that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.
"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."
Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.
The DBCDE said it would like to see the organisation retain an open and participatory membership.
"Australia has always supported the participation of civil society and the private sector in the IGF and regards their participation as being integral to the IGF's success," a spokesman told iTnews.
Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why it took you how many days to reply to this? Interesting.
I was bored, and decided to read through old threads. Honestly, I had forgotten our little exchange until I saw your reply.
Kanluwen wrote:
See, now that? That's deflection.
You already said you never studied debate, so why are you trying to argue with me as regards what constitutes deflection?
Kanluwen wrote:
...Of course that's a fething problem, fool.
A politician who is in a position where he can give away jobs that contractors are bidding for should not ever be receiving money from companies that are bidding for that job.
Is it too complicated for you? Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon, maybe put some sparkles on it so your eye is drawn to it?
No, you need to explain why that's a problem instead of merely saying that it is.
Note, simply taking money from company X does not indicate that company X is not the most competitive bidder. In fact, one could argue that the willingness to grease wheels makes company X the most competitive bidder.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, I'm equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
It's not that complicated to understand.
I understand exactly what you're doing, and I'm basically explaining that to you. For example, you just, again, equated police and politics.
Now, you could argue that doing so was your intention, and that police and politics are comparable, but that would first require accepting that you're equating two different things for the purposes of comparison. You seem unwilling to do this for what I can only conclude are reasons of masculine net-pride.
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh no, I've answered it. It's not the answer you wanted, apparently so you continue to try to browbeat me with thinly veiled insults about this sbuject.
Well, you've answered in the sense that you've responded to a question that I've asked. You haven't answered in the sense that your response had any material implications with respect to the matter at hand.
Incidentally, I'm not insulting you, I'm merely explaining my demeanor with respect to you. Insulting someone would require some sort of derisive comparison, which I haven't entered into.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hemingway wrote:
obviously the correct response was to take a rhetorical comment literally and respond with a sarcastic link. C- for effort, D for originality, but your pedantry scores are off the charts!
Bro, that is always the correct response to a rhetorical comment.
Kanluwen wrote:
...Of course that's a fething problem, fool.
A politician who is in a position where he can give away jobs that contractors are bidding for should not ever be receiving money from companies that are bidding for that job.
Is it too complicated for you? Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon, maybe put some sparkles on it so your eye is drawn to it?
No, you need to explain why that's a problem instead of merely saying that it is.
Note, simply taking money from company X does not indicate that company X is not the most competitive bidder. In fact, one could argue that the willingness to grease wheels makes company X the most competitive bidder.
It's a conflicted interest, I'd figure that would be clear to someone of your mind-blowing intellect .
Politicians are not supposed to be awarding contracts based on who "greases the wheel". They're supposed to be awarding contracts based on who is able to provide the best product/service for the most acceptable price.
dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
No, I'm equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
It's not that complicated to understand.
I understand exactly what you're doing, and I'm basically explaining that to you. For example, you just, again, equated police and politics.
Now, you could argue that doing so was your intention, and that police and politics are comparable, but that would first require accepting that you're equating two different things for the purposes of comparison. You seem unwilling to do this for what I can only conclude are reasons of masculine net-pride.
What in the feth are you talking about?
equating investigative procedures in exposing corruption in police forces to investigative procedures in exposing corruption in politics.
How is this complicated to understand?
If an Internal Affairs investigation looks at your financial reports, tracking how much money is being spent based on how much you legitimately have at your disposal and it doesn't add up--then something's up.
If a diplomat is being investigated for corruption, an agency looks at their finances and sees irregularities like said diplomat being listed and paid for their services as a "consultant" to a company that they claim to have no ties to--then something's up.
Now, if only I had some crayons and glitter to help this sink in...
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh no, I've answered it. It's not the answer you wanted, apparently so you continue to try to browbeat me with thinly veiled insults about this sbuject.
Well, you've answered in the sense that you've responded to a question that I've asked. You haven't answered in the sense that your response had any material implications with respect to the matter at hand.
And you've ignored the fact that it was a perfectly acceptable answer explaining what the "means available to a person" is.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's a conflicted interest, I'd figure that would be clear to someone of your mind-blowing intellect .
So? You still haven't addressed the fact that a bribe does not negate the quality of work being done.
Kanluwen wrote:
Politicians are not supposed to be awarding contracts based on who "greases the wheel". They're supposed to be awarding contracts based on who is able to provide the best product/service for the most acceptable price.
So, as I said, the bribe isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not the service provided is acceptable.
Kanluwen wrote:
What in the feth are you talking about?
I'm explaining to you why your argument is bad, and how you could improve; plus a little bit of speculation as to why you refuse to do so.
Kanluwen wrote:
How is this complicated to understand?
If an Internal Affairs investigation looks at your financial reports, tracking how much money is being spent based on how much you legitimately have at your disposal and it doesn't add up--then something's up.
If a diplomat is being investigated for corruption, an agency looks at their finances and sees irregularities like said diplomat being listed and paid for their services as a "consultant" to a company that they claim to have no ties to--then something's up.
Now, if only I had some crayons and glitter to help this sink in...
What constitutes a diplomat's legitimate earnings? It certainly isn't merely his salary, and his stock holding are obviously questionable given the potential for foreign investment. So what constitutes "legitimacy" in such a context? Political will?
Dude, you've just restated the point that I previously said was crap.
Try to move past bad arguments.
Kanluwen wrote:
And you've ignored the fact that it was a perfectly acceptable answer explaining what the "means available to a person" is.
No, that's not what that comment was about, go back and read the thread.
My friend in high school had a great saying "England, cant live with em, cant defeat third world countries without them"
It makes sense to me, England is a small nation, but it has people serving in it's Royal Marines like me, individuals who are Tommy Rockers. And as such the US military is smart to seek our aid because I am a steely eyed dealer of death and I count as 10 men.... and... and... balls like watermelons have I.
I really liked hanging out with Royal Marines, both in Iraq and back in 29 Palms. At the E-Club I was shown what a "Rugby Shot" is, which was an experience I'll never forget.
dogma wrote:Bro, that is always the correct response to a rhetorical comment.
Rhetoric is for the plebes.
are you calling frazzled a plebe?
dogma wrote:I have fairly controversial ideas regarding "corruption", so that's to be expected.
what dogma is saying here is that he bribes politicians for a living =P
kidding aside, though, your suggestion that a bribe doesn't negate the quality of the work also works the other way: it's not necessarily a guarantor of a high standard of work. the reason that a politician taking a bribe to award a contract is a problem is that he is awarding public moneys based on his own pecuniary interest, when he has a fiduciary responsibility for those moneys and an ethical responsibility to use them in the public interest.
hemingway wrote:
are you calling frazzled a plebe?
No, I'm saying he often makes statements that are designed to be emotionally manipulative, rather than substantive.
hemingway wrote:
kidding aside, though, your suggestion that a bribe doesn't negate the quality of the work also works the other way: it's not necessarily a guarantor of a high standard of work. the reason that a politician taking a bribe to award a contract is a problem is that he is awarding public moneys based on his own pecuniary interest, when he has a fiduciary responsibility for those moneys and an ethical responsibility to use them in the public interest.
Sure, but those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. My point is that the system is structured such that it is in the self-interest of politicians to act with the public interest in mind, as well as their own. Taking bribes, or otherwise benefiting from the award of a contract, is not intrinsically bad. If it were, then everyone that ends up being reelected following a strong performance in office would be engaging in morally reprehensible behavior.
This is made all the more complicated by the nebulous nature of legitimate income. In the world of politics "taking a bribe" isn't always about getting some money slipped under the table. Sometimes its simply a matter of professional courtesy that might be extended due to having a contract awarded, or perhaps hiring a certain individual for the same reason.
Seriously? Grow up please.
tard
