Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.

Ahtman wrote:The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.

Shocking, a show that presents commentators with divergent views! Plus you did state you only watched half of it...can't really base your opinion on an incomplete picture of how the ideas and questions were presented.

I have other things I need to do besides watch 24 minutes of it at this time. I am perfectly allowed to have an opinion of what I saw. I didn't lie about it and pretend to watch the whole and explicitly stated that the opinion given was based on 12 minutes of viewing.

That 'interview' wasn't different commentators giving divergent viewpoints. It was more akin to an infomercial style interview where the so called interviewer is actually feeding the so called guests questions with pre-arranged answers. An actual interview requires some push and pull, give and take, and mild, but sensual probing. He never followed up a question or questioned their responses. If you want to see the difference, watch the Frost/Nixon tapes, or the movie about them. There isn't much journalism here. here is the pattern it followed the entire first half:

Intervewer: Guest A, X has been Said about Wikileaks.

Guest A: No, Wikileaks is awesome

Intervewer: Guest B, Y has been Said about Wikileaks.

Guest B: No Wikileaks is awesome

Intervewer: Guest A, X has been Said about Wikileaks.

Guest A: No, Wikileaks is awesome

Intervewer: Guest B, Y has been Said about Wikileaks.

Guest B: No Wikileaks is awesome


Just look at how they discussed the Apache incident without ever actually discussing it. If you don't know what happened you would get the impression it was a cut and dry case of an Apache purposefully targeting reporters becuase they were reporters, which isn't what happened at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by the Metropolitan Police.

The 39-year-old Australian denies allegations he sexually assaulted two women in Sweden.

Scotland Yard said Mr Assange was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant by appointment at a London police station at 0930 GMT.

He is due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court later.

Mr Assange is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010.

..by appointment eh ? How civilised.

Phryxis wrote:

But leaking documents like the key infrastructure sites, that certainly needs jail.

It depends on what context you're asking in as well.

If you're talking about "by today's standards" then I agree, jail is what we do, if that.

I was saying I think people should be executed because I think our standards have slipped. I think it would be fairly unprecedented, but I think it sends a message that is necessary, and I think it's also legally supportable. The penalty for death is treason. It needs to be clear to American citizens that this stuff is NOT a joke. There are a LOT of lives on the line, both American and beyond, and none of them are to be dismissed. If somebody thinks they can play petulant little games with classified information, then they don't understand this fact. They should be used to make a clear example of what this is about.

It's really insane to me to think of what sort of people these have to be leaking this stuff. I'm a pretty anti-authoritarian person, I don't like being told what to do, I don't like people trying to put themselves "above" me, and I have almost nothing for contempt for our elected officials... But even I recognize that human society is built on cooperation, compliance, and respect for the systems and structures that make our exceedingly comfortable existance possible. For somebody to not get that bespeaks a level of social dysfunction or immaturity that is hard to process, especially given how socially dysfunctional and immature I know I am.

he's a terrorist using information. Sweeps terminate him.

Now what? Guantanamo? Shot while trying to escape?

More likely Swedish court.

He hasn't, to my knowledge, done anything that's actually illegal in the US.

dogma wrote:More likely Swedish court.

He hasn't, to my knowledge, done anything that's actually illegal in the US.

This.

lord_blackfang wrote:Now what? Guantanamo? Shot while trying to escape?

B is preferred but Gitmo is not needed. Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.

Frazzled wrote:Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.

On a charge of what? He's broken no laws. Embarrassing the US is not a crime.

The really disappointing part about this whole affair, if you ask me (and no one did) is how quickly the media has jumped whole hog onto all these extralegal remedies for the wikileaks problem. The United States being minorly embarrassed is not illegal, and not a problem. A document being leaked that we consider nuclear power plants to be sensitive sites is not a problem. The fact we know that the Afghani President's brother is more overtly gangster then politician then we allow in polite society is also not a problem.

The calls for the CIA to garrot him in a hotel room as a problem. The calls for him to be disappeared are a problem. The calls for him to be declared an enemy combatant and sent to a lawless gulag are a problem. The horrible mindset that our constitution, which we revere as a alleged nation of law as the best way to run a fair and free society... until we have a won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest moment - at which point we can sidestep it as a quaint relic of no import - that's a problem.

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.

On a charge of what? He's broken no laws. Embarrassing the US is not a crime.

The really disappointing part about this whole affair, if you ask me (and no one did) is how quickly the media has jumped whole hog onto all these extralegal remedies for the wikileaks problem. The United States being minorly embarrassed is not illegal, and not a problem. A document being leaked that we consider nuclear power plants to be sensitive sites is not a problem. The fact we know that the Afghani President's brother is more overtly gangster then politician then we allow in polite society is also not a problem.

The calls for the CIA to garrot him in a hotel room as a problem. The calls for him to be disappeared are a problem. The calls for him to be declared an enemy combatant and sent to a lawless gulag are a problem. The horrible mindset that our constitution, which we revere as a alleged nation of law as the best way to run a fair and free society... until we have a won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest moment - at which point we can sidestep it as a quaint relic of no import - that's a problem.

Espionage. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
Or alternatively just cap his sorry ass. people have died because of him.
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.

Monster Rain wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I'm not saying that the poor in the US have it easy, but I think Phryxis was right for the most part.

The poor can have lots of children, apply for aid, and live better than some medium income families in America.

Yes. Yes they can.

That isn't going to happen in every country. Even the poor in America need to quit their bitching, quite frankly. FFS, get a little perspective people.

Yeah, I would agree with this. Most people aren't very traveled. Leave the US and you'll see what poverty is.

Frazzled wrote:Espionage

Not so much.

Frazzled wrote:Or alternatively just cap his sorry ass. people have died because of him

Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?

Frazzled wrote:He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.

Why stop there? The NY times published this information. Should we not also blow up the NY times headquarters? At what point is it no longer OK to call someone "a terrorist" and then murder them without any due process of law? Who gets to make that call?

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Or alternatively just cap his sorry ass. people have died because of him.
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.

Why stop there? The NY times published this information. Should we not also blow up the NY times headquarters? At what point is it no longer OK to call someone "a terrorist" and then murder them without any due process of law? Who gets to make that call?

Vote for Frazzled on the Weiner Dog ticket in 2012 and I will!

Don't know if this just goes here, or if I should start a new thread, but Julian Assange turned himself into to Scotland Yard today in London.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8186048/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-arrested-by-Scotland-Yard.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08assange.html?_r=1&hp

WikiLeaks is also apparently threatening the legal system with the rest of the diplomatic cable release if anything happens to him. Currently, he's being considered for extradition to Sweden and has been refused bail. As far as I can tell at least.

Frazzled wrote:
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.

I see that the word 'terrorist' has no lost the last shred of meaning it once had.

Unless you're really trying to argue that Assange is in some why attempting to incite fear?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?

You've spotted the main issue with that line of argument. Namely that its generally represented as "people have died" instead of "people may have died".

You're also right about the espionage charge. It isn't an easy case, and may well be impossible.

ChrisWWII wrote:Don't know if this just goes here, or if I should start a new thread, but Julian Assange turned himself into to Scotland Yard today in London.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8186048/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-arrested-by-Scotland-Yard.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08assange.html?_r=1&hp

WikiLeaks is also apparently threatening the legal system with the rest of the diplomatic cable release if anything happens to him. Currently, he's being considered for extradition to Sweden and has been refused bail. As far as I can tell at least.

Thats blackmail. Another felony... this is reaching Doctor Evil proportions. Where's my sharks with frigging laser beams?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.

I see that the word 'terrorist' has no lost the last shred of meaning it once had.

Unless you're really trying to argue that Assange is in some way attempting to incite fear?

Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.

Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.

Ouze wrote:
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?

You've spotted the main issue with that line of argument. Namely that its generally represented as "people have died" instead of "people may have died".

You're also right about the espionage charge. It isn't an easy case, and may well be impossible.

Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.

And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.

This will all be cleared up when the Assange biopic comes out next year. Apparently this isn't a joke.

Kanluwen wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
He's a terrorist using information as a weapon. He needs to stop breathing.

I see that the word 'terrorist' has no lost the last shred of meaning it once had.

Unless you're really trying to argue that Assange is in some way attempting to incite fear?

Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.

Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.

Ouze wrote:
Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?

You've spotted the main issue with that line of argument. Namely that its generally represented as "people have died" instead of "people may have died".

You're also right about the espionage charge. It isn't an easy case, and may well be impossible.

Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.

And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.

Has there even been a case where someone who was named died? thats what we're asking for, sure its hard to say if they died because of wikileaks. But its pretty damn easy to know if they were named and later died.

Besides he's really starting to get on my nearves, the little geek terrorist. We need to link him up with that Palin show.

"Today's going to be a good hunt, we're going to bag us some Assange, you betcha!"

Frazzled wrote:Besides he's really starting to get on my nearves,

Well, at least we share some common ground. Having the right to be an asshat doesn't mean being an asshat is the right thing to do.

Kanluwen wrote:
Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.

Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.

Wait, so military operations designed to damage enemy morale should also be considered terrorism?

I mean, I'm fine with that, but then we're just left with the question "What sorts of terrorism are acceptable?" Which means we haven't really gotten anywhere.

Kanluwen wrote:
Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.

Its not actually illegal to receive classified information. If it were, then everyone who has read any of the leaks would also be guilty of espionage.

You might be able to get away with a violation for the publication of classified information, but the jurisprudence surrounding that isn't clear cut; even if the law itself is reasonably so.

Kanluwen wrote:
And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.

Well, yeah, that's the difference between "may have" and "have".

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Sure he is. The whole "If I'm arrested, I'll disseminate documents that will bring about the downfall of Bank of America" and "If I'm arrested, I'll publish raw intelligence documents with no redaction" is a threat attempting to incite fear in governments.

Remember, terrorism doesn't just have to be aimed at the general populace.

Wait, so military operations designed to damage enemy morale should also be considered terrorism?

I mean, I'm fine with that, but then we're just left with the question "What sorts of terrorism are acceptable?" Which means we haven't really gotten anywhere.

Nope, they're "Psychological warfare"!

There's a huge difference between sanctioned military operations, conducted during war, and things done outside of a war.

Kanluwen wrote:
Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.

Its not actually illegal to receive classified information. If it were, then everyone who has read any of the leaks would also be guilty of espionage.

No they wouldn't. They're reading published documents.
It's the whole "intent" thing again. Assange has made it publicly known that anyone who sends classified or illegally obtained documents to WikiLeaks will be protected.
He's, for all purposes, stating that he "wants" the information made available to him. A good prosecutor could spin this far better than I could.

You might be able to get away with a violation for the publication of classified information, but the jurisprudence surrounding that isn't clear cut; even if the law itself is reasonably so.

Here's where it gets fun.

They've got a system in place that really has only had to deal with accidental publishing of classified information(barring that douchebag Scooter Libby).
Now we've got Assange to practice on! A foreign national, with no affiliation to any government agency to back him up, who's requested classified information relating to deployment schedules, etc...it's a goldmine for an espionage charge.

Why do I say that?
Because they can nail him with a publishing classified information at the very least. He's also violated the protection of anonymity for informants(which is a huge deal to prosecutors. Anytime it crops up in mob related cases, even accidentally blowing the cover of a witness is jailtime at the least. This is far more than that).

Kanluwen wrote:
And the "people may have died" v. "people have died" thing is getting old. NATO, the UK, and various intelligence services have said there's no real way to link the death of their informants in Iraq and Afghanistan directly to the WikiLeaks...but at the same time, they weren't killed before the WikiLeaks naming them came out.
So it's either a great big coincidence, or a cause.

Well, yeah, that's the difference between "may have" and "have".

No, it's not.
It's the difference between responsibly publishing classified material intended to cast light upon previously unknown or hidden facts(ex: Pentagon Papers/Watergate) and just publishing everything because you have relative anonymity.

I really find it hard to believe that there's a "group of journalists who carefully work with government agencies" to verify what is/isn't proper to publish. The list of informants alone proved that it's BS.

Ouze wrote:

Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?

Ouze, The mods have diplomatic immunity when it comes to trolling.

Best to just not take the bait and move along...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089

Another one of the many problems caused by this leak....I swear Julian Assange is going to cause a major diplomatic incident at this rate. More importanly is the fact that he and his webstie think it's ok to just leak out military operations...seriously. I'm all for transparency, but couldn't these people, y'know, have a brain when it comes to leaking this kind of information? I swear, this website seems dedicated to just causing problems....

CT GAMER wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Who? Can you name a single person who was harmed by this information being leaked?

Ouze, The mods have diplomatic immunity when it comes to trolling.

Best to just not take the bait and move along...

its not trolling because someone disagrees with you. I know thats an alien concept in your part of town.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089

Another one of the many problems caused by this leak....I swear Julian Assange is going to cause a major diplomatic incident at this rate. More importanly is the fact that he and his webstie think it's ok to just leak out military operations...seriously. I'm all for transparency, but couldn't these people, y'know, have a brain when it comes to leaking this kind of information? I swear, this website seems dedicated to just causing problems....

Thats the point of what they are doing. People who think they are doing this for some higher purpose are deluded.

Frazzled wrote:its not trolling because someone disagrees with you. I know thats an alien concept in your part of town.

don't ruin a perfectly good meme in it's infancy.

Ahtman wrote:The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.

Can you reference a show that does what you're talking about on this issue?

I thought the guy asked a few good questions, and I enjoyed the fact that they didn't focus on Assange AT ALL. Certainly not the best piece I've ever seen, but the main problem was with the guests.

Sorry anyway. My apologies for providing you the opportunity to waste twelve minutes of your time, then spend five more minutes explaining why you don't want to spend twelve more minutes talking about it. Not that I think you are just being mean or anything.

You probably know much more about this issue, but whatever.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011

Delicious irony.