I don't see why people are concerned with the laws or legalities of putting information like this in the public domain. The people who created the laws are committing much worse crimes all over the world, yet focus is drawn on one of the people exposing them. I certainly won't obey laws created by people who ignore international laws and regulations, not to mention the ones they create in their own country.
I think the founders of the US would be in support of exposing the kind of shit that's going on. They warned people it would all happen again, that's why they gave us the bill of rights. To fight it. That includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The government and corporate heads being exposed are the real traitors to humanity.
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:31 am
by cosmic_surgeon
wormcode wrote:I certainly won't obey laws created by people who ignore international laws and regulations, not to mention the ones they create in their own country.
The irony is that they even issued that European Arrest Warrant for Assange illegally. An EAW can only be issued once they have sufficient evidence following an investigation, and not whilst said investigation takes place.
If Manning is convicted, it will be because his individual dedication to human ethics far surpasses that of the US government.
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:43 am
by wormcode
Yeah they obviously want to try to make an example out of him to continue these scare tactics they've got going on. The Air Force banned soldiers from reading The Guardian, many websites are blocked and they are even forbidden from viewing them from home. Universities like Columbia have told students that basically if they value their future to not speak about or seek out Wikileaks. The dean later retracted and reworded it though.
LinkTV has been broadcasting some interesting stuff the last few days including chats with Assange's lawyer: www.linktv.org
Twitter is now part of the national archives so I wonder if this will be the first time the government attempts to use it to prosecute people for distributing cables.
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:34 pm
by deadly_habit
64hz wrote:heres a good article about the Bradley Manning situation:
Its amazing how almost nothing is heard about him.
illuminating interview, BBC is getting seriously annoying, objectivity seems to have gone right out the window.
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:09 pm
by dreamizm
deadly habit wrote:
wow your bbc "journalists" are getting to be as bad as the ones on msnbc and fox news here
Get Me. I lost the little respect I had for Kirstie after watching that last night. The questioning on the 'sexual conduct' at the end was embarrassingly bad.
Out to Assange for handling it.
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:22 am
by aftee
All I've said is what he's done is illegal, he's a rapist, and he doesn't deserve to be treated like some holy figure or hero. All of that is true, isn't it?
So whoever is bitching about me, can fuck off.
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:30 am
by Sirius
I must B a big time rapist is rooting people in their sleep & not using a condom is rape!!
!!chea
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:55 am
by badger
aftee wrote:All I've said is what he's done is illegal, he's a rapist, and he doesn't deserve to be treated like some holy figure or hero. All of that is true, isn't it?
not really no
if you're talking about the leaks being illegal then that's stupid considering it's the people that are complaining about their crimes being published that are claiming him to be a criminal for releasing them to the public. if some insane dictator made it illegal to drink water and then someone was convicted of that would you still think the law should be upheld?
as for the "rapes" that's more tricky. what he's being accused of is only a crime in sweden and the illegalities of his warrant and the links of one of his accusers to the CIA don't exactly present a solid case against him. he may still be guilty but the way it's been handled by various governments mean that at the very least they've taken his crime and used it for their advantage with little concern to how it looks and how injust it is when compared to the treatment of other rapists
Nah man, they've got it all wrong... it's a false false flag...
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:16 pm
by badger
hackman wrote:
badger wrote:some of the stuff on that examiner site is mind-boggling... and the comments....
do you want to say why?
otherwise i place no value on your comment lol
the website is full of borderline paranoid ramblings and theories that are presented as indisputable facts when most of the time by their very nature they can't be proven. one of the comments said nothing other than "i know this to be true" - how the fuck did they manage that then? any of those theories may well be true but noone knows one way or the other other than very high up people (ie not some random posting on the comments of a website) so comments like that show the complete lack of any sensible judgement that you so often see amongst conspiracy theorists
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:17 pm
by j_one
You forgot Badger, in cases like these just use your brain! No proof or evidence required!
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:20 pm
by badger
damn my stupidity back to my pointless life of aim-less dronery then eh?
Re: WikiLeaks
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:25 pm
by j_one
Nah I've got the answer... just started WikiLeaksLeaks where we can leak leaks on WikiLeaks...
back to my pointless life of aim-less dronery then eh?