WikiLeaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

If anyone has the notion that the .gov can do a better job and controlling YOUR money, you are seriously mistaken. I like to think that America is still the land of the free and I believe that entails choosing what I do with my money and living with the outcomes of those choices.

---

We don't have a government for the purpose of controlling our money. We have government for a myriad of purposes, for example, ensuring that there is a functional monetary system to start with. Many of these purposes are flawed, as again for example, a gold-backed standard could be used as currency. The core purpose of government (IMHO) is to enforce the silver rule, "Don't hurt others" (* without their consent). All of us are armed and could protect ourselves from many reasonable threats, but it sure is nice to not have to do so constantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I am all for having some .gov, but ours is working its way to being out of control. the spending habits should be seen as enough evidence to take action and not give them any more. Start dismantling them internally and taking down sections piece by piece until the size is reduced to acceptable levels, then put barriers in place that would restrict the size only to necessary levels for future growth of our country as needed.

---

Yes, spending is out of control. Affecting that by reducing the supply of funds as the only tool seems like trying to downsize a building with a wrecking ball. A more appropriate method would be to actually repeal, adjust, or replace a great many laws that direct where the money goes. Before all the other distractions in the news, the two Senators who proposed massive cuts across the government were getting traction. You know it's a good compromise when both the GOP and Dems hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I have been pondering WTF our politicians are thinking in the first place, better yet why there are enough people like ERNO out there in the world that aren't ripping each and every single one of them a new asshole for even considering not extending tax cuts. I am still pissed they aren't permanent. Obama was right...this country needs some serious change, just not the change he was talking about.

---

They're thinking that because there are people in the US who are analytical and realize that cutting taxes in the face of such staggering debt is insane. People who have studied the "trickle down" economics of the 80's and can prove that it doesn't work. And finally, people who understand that you cannot live under a ballooning debt and still have your currency be worth anything.

You cannot hang this mill stone around the neck of the Democrats alone, either. Even Clinton, the only one to actually change the delta the right way, left office with more debt than he entered with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Debt is debt, and it works the same way. The sooner you start paying it off, the sooner it's paid off. I would rather see taxes rise for everyone than be extended. I want to see the budget slashed by 30% or more, too. I'm not going to get either of my wishes, am I?

As for the whole "going Galt" and dis-incentive to work, you'd be entirely correct if the percentages were actually substantial, thankfully they aren't.

I don't want to pay more taxes. I just want to be debt free more. We are throwing money away on the national debt, and handing it to China and Saudi Arabia by the train load. We are killing the chances of our children and grandchildren to live in a first world country. 30 years of meteoric rise in the national debt has allowed the baby boomers to lead a wonderful life, financed on the backs of their children and grand children. The "greatest" generation was followed by the "greediest" generation.

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I'm as right-wing as they come and even I think republicans have been just as irresponsible in the management of our economy as democrats.

So does that make the democrats and Obama home-grown terrorists, too? After all...they're the party in charge and they'll be the ones signing off on the compromise.

---

I'd never call members of either party "terrorists", because there is an actual meaning to that word which obviously doesn't apply.

But yes, the Dems are just as responsible as the GOP for this clusterf&$k as anyone else. I had high hopes that logic and reason would win out. That probably makes me a sucker.

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

I'd never call members of either party "terrorists", because there is an actual meaning to that word which obviously doesn't apply.

---

Agreed. Just like the way "Nazi" is used these days.

If a terrorist is one who uses irrational fear to coerce someone, then most of our politicians qualify. How else do you explain the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the TSA's latest assault on our Constitutional rights?

As Rahm Emmanuel said, never let a good crisis go to waste.... [Rant1]

I agree the term is over used, and as such, has lost much of its meaning. But it easier to type than "Corrupt, unscrupulous, power mad, misguided, motherless son of a whore".....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

...motherless son of a whore"

---

[ROFL1]

OK...how, exactly, does that happen?

Looks like Assange is in Jail and will not be allowed custody.

now the wait begins. see how long it takes or even if he will be extradited to sweeden. Then see what happens in the US after that. He has a very long road of shit in his near future.

Hopefully the mass amount of documents and materials that his supporters supposedly downloaded is not true. If they are talking the great number they speak of now, I would have to guess some, if not all of it would have been leaked by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

[ROFL1]

OK...how, exactly, does that happen?

---

I dunno, just got my Poetic License, and haven't read the instructions yet....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Agreed. Just like the way "Nazi" is used these days.

---

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

I dunno, just got my Poetic License, and haven't read the instructions yet....

---

[Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

Looks like Assange is in Jail and will not be allowed custody.

now the wait begins. see how long it takes or even if he will be extradited to sweeden. Then see what happens in the US after that. He has a very long road of shit in his near future.

Hopefully the mass amount of documents and materials that his supporters supposedly downloaded is not true. If they are talking the great number they speak of now, I would have to guess some, if not all of it would have been leaked by them.

---

The charges he faces in Sweden amount to a slap on the wrist. The "rape" that everyone mentions was consensual sex, the police reports are available. He hasn't been charged with anything in the US, and as far as I know hasn't broken any US laws. Bradley Manning on the other hand, is probably pretty well FUBAR.

The "Insurance" file is a strongly encrypted dump of all the log files. Wikileaks is slowly going through each document, redacting the damaging portions (the stuff that would get people killed) which is why only a fraction of the documents have been released to date. The encryption used isn't known for sure, but based on the filename is presumed to be AES with a 256 byte cypher. No encryption is flawless, of course, but even Ft. Meade won't be able to break a given AES256 in then next 15 years (barring quantum computing)

What I find particularly humorous is that people equate Assange with WikiLeaks. As in, now that they "have him" WL will stop operating. He's little more than the public face of the organization.

Personally I think Jake Applebaum is more interesting, he's the only American who is an acknowledged participant in WL. He works on software called TOR, which began in a navy research lab and has been funded by the US Military as a tool to route around internet censorship and prevent the source of traffic from being located. That same software (reportedly) was used to send most of the leaks that WL has published.

It should also be noted, for the vast majority of people who never heard of Wikileaks before the Apache video, that they have released damaging documents from a great many countries and institutions. WL is not the first website trying to expose secrets, nor will it be the last. Cryptome is another one to get information that people seek to conceal.

H.

Maybe they know where Osama is.

Really good article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...s-train-wreck/

"WASH- The Justice Department, in considering whether and how it might indict Julian Assange, is looking beyond the Espionage Act of 1917 to other possible offenses, including conspiracy or trafficking in stolen property, according to officials familiar with the investigation."
I call for Joe Liberman[I, Conn.], to also go jump in the lake!
"The prosecutors seeking Mr. Assange's extration suspect that he may have engaged in the last "rape" category, which is punishable by as much as four years in prison."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERNO

extration

---

He's safe-The U.S. has no extration laws [ROFL1]

Ron Paul has an interesting opinion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ywoInPNXZJk

Paul's nine questions:

Quote:

---

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed'

---

Here's a "documentary" that is quite up to date, and at parts will make you RRRAAAGGEEE but it's important to see the side of the story that isn't being told, right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_HBE

four parts.

H.

Wow - impressive.
The closing quote from that;

Quote:

---

Democracy without transparency is no democracy, it's just an empty word.

---

Clearly Assange is not perfect, but the concept of publicizing wrongdoing by those in power is one I wholeheartedly support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

Here's a "documentary" that is quite up to date, and at parts will make you RRRAAAGGEEE but it's important to see the side of the story that isn't being told, right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_HBE

four parts.

H.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2ndChildhood

Clearly Assange is not perfect

---

I think the discussion would have been better served without someone like Assange in the picture. Clearly he's someone that's easy for those in power to hate, and to target, but he's really not germane to the issue at hand -- government transparency and accountability.

There is a difference between keeping a temporary secret (e.g. the troops are moving from A to B at 1500 hours) and keeping a permanent secret (e.g. the oil facilities at Abqaiq are crucial to US supply). One of them you can keep secret, because it has a finite duration. After the troops have moved, that information is no longer important. The idea that many people have that keeping secret information forever provides security, is not only wrong it's hurtful. If you think a piece of information is secret, you can thing that what the secret covers is secure. The truth is you can't know if it's a secret anymore. When people think someone is secret they think it's secure. Security derives from actually having a hardened target, not from keeping it secret.

Security through obscurity is no security at all.

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

By your logic, we should publish instructions on every aspect of nuclear weapon production right now, including the most detailed aspects of our refining technologies, etc. Just because all of that would be discovered "someday" by "every country". Then we just harden our nuclear installations, and everyone that's in them will assuredly live, cause we hardened our important installations to provide "security".

PS: If you can't tell, I'm being (and have been) highly sarcastic. I don't get along with chuckleheads that hold such a high opinion of themselves that they can't respect other viewpoints and rage over everything. I'm REALLY unappreciative of people that try to inject assumed statements in order to attempt to create arguments.

It's also quite obvious that you <3 wikileaks. Hell, I bet you want 4chan as your government. (doesn't it piss you off when people put words in your mouth?)

On a serious note, one of the best (and cheapest) methods of pseudo security is obscurity. Note that I'm not saying ONLY method, so I highly recommend you don't try to inject arguments again. It doesn't last forever, but the problem is, no country, person, or place has the ability to harden everything against every threat possible.

As a guy familiar with the internet, I'd think you would know this. If your making sitemaps or robot.txt generators, do you include EVERY script link that exists on your sites? Or do you leave off any non-public scripts (even when they have their own security measures in place) because there is no REASON for the public or public scripts to be attempting access?

I'm also curious to know if you accept ALL internet traffic on your home connection, just because you're so awesome that you can protect against every known vulnerability from every conceivable source that you don't need any measure of obscurity.

---

Secrecy or Obscurity can be thought of as the outer most thin layer on an the security onion. The paper-like peel. Or course you leave it there, it provides some measure of protection from rank incompetence. Maybe your enemey is too stupid to run nmap. But when it's breached isn't cause for retribution. Your security isn't harmed. You don't go retaliating against everyone who scans your network.

Bradley Manning = broke the law. Wikileaks (and those that come after them) = protected by the 1st amendment and previous supreme court rulings.

It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, I was just reacting to what I thought you were saying. There's a wide gulf between misinterpreting your position as implying something and using guile to coerce an argument.

As for nuclear material, the knowledge of how to refine it is no secret. The information has been widely available for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan The secrecy of manufacturing nuclear warheads isn't what keeps us secure. The regulation of nuclear material is what keeps us secure.

There's a difference between publishing it, and the threat of violence against those who expose it. I'm not particularly fond of Wikileaks, I think they're far too "flamboyant" and that Assange is essentially a media-whore. I do think that the organizations that come along afterwards, or the changes influenced in Journalism, will be positive. I have high hopes for Open Leaks, as they're plan is to take the lessons learned from Wikileaks and go forward from there.

If the US Government goes after Wikileaks, will they also move against the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, The Economist, Der Spiegel, and all the other new agencies that are covering the facts in the released cables?

H.

"Ana Arden, one of WikiLeaks Assaage 'rape' accuser's linked to notorious CIA Operative now in latest development. One of the women appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the U.S. C.I.A."
"Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called 'sex by suprise' or 'unexpected sex'."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERNO

"Ana Arden, one of WikiLeaks Assaage 'rape' accuser's linked to notorious CIA Operative now in latest development. One of the women appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the U.S. C.I.A."
"Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called 'sex by suprise' or 'unexpected sex'."

---

Please include source whenever you quote!

http://robertbartholomew.newsvine.co...-cia-operative

In this case, it is not news. It's from a blog/opinion column. I thought you only read NYT and nothing else, Erno? :P

Why would he want to include the source when he'd really rather we just assume it was legitimate? Especially since for his apparent purposes the truth can be so darn inconvenient. I used to work with a guy who really liked quoting nonexistent regulations when you called him on something.

Ron Paul's 9 Ridiculous Questions Answered:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

No. Not everything about them. Should we begin to publish all troop movements, operations, schedules, etc..? This astoundingly stupid question implies, "Yes."

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

There are tens of thousands of junior enlisted people that have access to classified information. The military couldn't function otherwise. I had a TS/SCI clearance 9 months into my military career with access to information a lot more sensitive than what's been released so far. This shows an amazing lack of understanding on how the military works. Ron Paul should know better.

This is a glaring attempt to deflect from the real question: Why are Bradley Manning and Julian Assange such dickheads. These two are the problems in this equation. Not the fact that junior enlisted people have access to classified information. This is simply a variation of, "She deserved to be raped. Did you see how she was dressed?"

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

The government (in this case the military) can't always control what an individual does. I'm sure the Army used due diligence in granting a security clearance to Manning. Sometimes people do stupid things despite someone else's best efforts to stop them. One could say the same thing about the Ft Hood shooter. Why didn't the government protect the people that were killed?

Another lame-assed attempt at deflecting attention from the real criminals. Ron Paul should be ashamed for even asking this.

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

I'd say on balance, yes. Could it be better? Probably. I'd rather spend $80B per year on our current intelligence gathering system than $700B on ineffective stimulus plans.

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Back to the old "Bush lied, people died." What a douchebag. There were numerous other violations of UN sanctions that precipitated the war. It was not just about WMDs. Jesus...and Ron Paul probably sits up at night and wonders why more people don't take him seriously.

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Assange knew the information was classified and he knew he was not authorized to possess that information. He knew the information was illegally obtained by Manning. Let me ask you this: Next time someone comes to you and says, "Hey. I just stole Top Secret documents from the local military installation. You want them?", and you say, "Hell, yeah. I'll publish them on my blog." And you do publish them on your blog. Have you committed a crime? You bet your ass you have. It's no different from knowingly buying a stolen gun.

It wasn't too long ago that our government took this shit seriously and wouldn't have hesitated in putting a rope around the necks of Assange and Manning. Ethel and Julius, anyone? (I know, I know...they went to the chair)

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Could it be that the average Joe thinks Assange and Manning are scumbags that should be hanged? Could it be that's the reason for the outrage? Could it be this is yet another attempt at deflection?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Treason: The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Bradley Manning may have committed treason and should suffer the consequences if he's found guilty.

Assange probably can't be tried for treason. He was certainly a conspirator, though, and committed other crimes. Espionage?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

That's not what we're talking about here and anyone with at least half a brain should be able to comprehend that.

We're talking about a person who's taken a sworn oath to protect and defend the country knowingly providing stolen, classified documents to unauthorized persons. We're talking about another person, basically an anarchist with an axe to grind against the US, knowingly publishing in a public arena documents that he knew were stolen and he knew he wasn't authorized to possess. They both knew these documents would prove harmful to the government of the United States and to soldiers in harm's way.

If that's the best Ron Paul can do, fuck him. Maybe he should stick to hanging out with the truthers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

knowingly publishing in a public arena documents that he knew were stolen and he knew he wasn't authorized to possess

---

So if you were in possession of documents you know were stolen, you are not authorized to possess them, but they show concrete evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. What do you do?

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoosier

So if you were in possession of documents you know were stolen, you are not authorized to possess them, but they show concrete evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. What do you do?

H.

---

I'd spread the word like wildfire and let the chips...and Kenyans...fall where they may.

Doesn't mean it's legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERNO

"Ana Arden, one of WikiLeaks Assaage 'rape' accuser's linked to notorious CIA Operative now in latest development. One of the women appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the U.S. C.I.A."
"Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called 'sex by suprise' or 'unexpected sex'."

---

And all of this begs the question...who the fuck cares what the Swedes want him for? Not to mention the CIA implication.

So let's just say you work for the CIA, ERNO. Your wife/sister/mother/daughter is raped. So, it doesn't count because they've been "linked" to the notorious ERNO, a known CIA operative?

Give me a fuckin' break. This is even more stupid than your usual stupid stupidity.

The only thing worse than a troll is fuckin' liberal troll.

Because I wanted to reveal how secret intelligence angency's perform some of their OPS; as in sexual encounters. From the U.S. CIA, former KGB, ISRAEL'IE MOSSAD, etc, etc.


Erno

Another amazing wikileak...

It's becoming crazy, the amount of secrets this site is able to release to the public. Check this shit out.










[LOL]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Another amazing wikileak...

It's becoming crazy, the amount of secrets this site is able to release to the public. Check this shit out.










[LOL]

---

fuckin' LOL [ROFL3]

Great column by Ann Coulter:

http://www.anncoulter.com/