In before Julian Assange...

[Bridget]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ange-interpol/

... mysteriously dying in a plane crash.

[Innoc]

I'm guessing Bridget's post claims to be in before Julian is assassinated. If so...I agree. It's one thing to screw with the US. Right now I think the response the US will offer up to such things is a joke. It's quite another to threaten Russia. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Russia will turn him into fertilizer.

[Iggy]

Hillary Clinton- "Hello, is this the President(or whatever) of Sweden?"
Swedish President- "Yes, it is. What may I do for you, Mrs. Clinton?"
Hillary- "The United States needs a favor, can you help us out?"
Swedish Pres- "Of course, Mrs. Clinton. Anything for one of our largest clients! What can we do for you?"
Hillary- "You know that guy who is leaking all of those sensative documents about the US on that website?"
Swede- "Oh, yes. I'm sure your government doesn't REALLY feel that way about me."
Hillary- "Of course not. Much of that was made up. But here's our problem: People are believing his lies. Could you possibly come up with some evidence of illegal activity of his, and help us get him wanted by the international community?"
Swede- "I'm sure we could find something. If not, we could always make something up. I mean, if he's willing to commit that act, what criminal activity would he NOT be a party to?"
Hillary- "Could you make it something sexual? Everyone hates a sexual deviant!"
Swede- "Absolutely! Any preference? Rape? Homosexuality? Incest? Kiddy Porn?"
Hillary- "Nothing gay, that'll backfire. Multiple Rape would be good. If need be, find some kiddy porn a week or two later if we don't get the desired result."
Swede- "What is the desired result?"
Hillary- "To discredit him, get him thrown in prison, and possibly killed by some random stranger. But this has to be hush-hush."
Swede- "Of course. We Swedish people are very discrete."
Hillary- "Thank you much. Usual payment?"
Swede- "Yes, ma'am. You have the account number."
Hillary- "You'll have it before the sun sets. Thank you again!"
Swede- "A pleasure."

*click*

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Innoc

I'm guessing Bridget's post claims to be in before Julian is assassinated. If so...I agree. It's one thing to screw with the US. Right now I think the response the US will offer up to such things is a joke. It's quite another to threaten Russia. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Russia will turn him into fertilizer.

Wait... maybe you read a different article than I did.... but where did he threaten Russia?

[YomMamasHouse]

He indicated that some documents involving large Russian businesses will be coming.. possibly.

[Bridget]

The Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has called for whoever leaked the 250,000 US diplomatic cables to be executed.

Huckabee, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination at the last election but is one of the favourites for 2012, joined a growing number of people demanding the severest punishment possible for those behind the leak, which has prompted a global diplomatic crisis.

His fellow potential Republican nominee Sarah Palin had already called for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be "hunted down", and an adviser to the Canadian prime minister has echoed her comments.

Huckabee said: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty."

EVERYONE IS FUCKING INSANE.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Wait... maybe you read a different article than I did.... but where did he threaten Russia?

Google for "Julian Assange Russia" and the Time.com article from Nov 1 will be in the top 3 links. There's plenty of hits out there to get you up to date on this...

[Iggy]

I didn't see anything in that article, but by coincidence, there was just something about it on the news, literally a minute ago. Guy must have a death wish.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

I didn't see anything in that article, but by coincidence, there was just something about it on the news, literally a minute ago. Guy must have a death wish.

In the time between when I posted the keywords and you checked...it moved in ranking. Go figure...it's a hot topic. Here's the link

Originally Posted by From the article I linked

It's certainly talking the talk. In an interview published on Tuesday, Oct. 26, in Russia's leading daily newspaper, Kommersant, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said that "Russian readers will learn a lot about their country" after one of the site's upcoming document dumps. "We want to tell people the truth about the actions of their governments."

So far Russia has had no official response. But on Wednesday, an official at the Center for Information Security of the FSB, Russia's secret police, gave a warning to WikiLeaks that showed none of the tact of the U.S. reply to the Iraq revelations. "It's essential to remember that given the will and the relevant orders, [WikiLeaks] can be made inaccessible forever," the anonymous official told the independent Russian news website LifeNews.

When reached by TIME, the FSB, which is the main successor to the Soviet KGB, declined to elaborate on the comment or say whether it was the agency's official position. But history has shown that the FSB readily steps in to shut down Internet tattlers.

Deathwish? That was my thought as well.

[GenghisTron]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...aks/index.html

Wikileaks is the best thing around right now. You know when there's bipartisan demagoguery, the status quo is being directly threatened.

[Lost]

I think shit like this is good for everyone who doesn't have their hand in the coffers. Transparency is never going to happen if someone doesn't force it.

I also respect the fact that he offered our government the opportunity to go over the documents and inform him of sensitive material that should not have been divulged. I imagine they declined, instead simply saying its a matter of national security and that he shouldn't release any of it. They apparently took him up on the first batch of stuff because I remember he delayed its release so that there would be no info over active combat units in the leak.

[GenghisTron]

Yes, Assange has offered to collaborate with intelligence agencies in the US, and they have all declined.

[Bridget]

Sounds like they mad 'cause he's stylin' on them.

[Lost]

Ben Franklin be throwin sum luv to Assange, fo sho.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Yes, Assange has offered to collaborate with intelligence agencies in the US, and they have all declined.

I don't believe that's true. I've not heard a single sound bite or direct quote from him to that effect and it would seem grossly inconsistent with his track record. It seems to me that he actively seeks to undermine any form of collaboration with regard to world governments. No, I don't believe that any bonafide offer of collaboration was ever offered by Julian Assange.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Innoc

I don't believe that's true. I've not heard a single sound bite or direct quote from him to that effect and it would seem grossly inconsistent with his track record. It seems to me that he actively seeks to undermine any form of collaboration with regard to world governments. No, I don't believe that any bonafide offer of collaboration was ever offered by Julian Assange.

If you wish to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative, not mine. It's already well-known that WikiLeaks has offered, publicly, multiple times, to collaborate with intelligence agencies to censor sensitive material. They've been turned down everytime. Your conjecture that they haven't offered a 'bonafide' offer is hilarious. How can you legitimately gauge whether or not they made a legit offer if they keep getting turned down? Oh right, you can't, and it just proves that Neo-Conservatives such as yourself are incapable of overcoming your intellectual bias towards people who challenge your 16th-century Machiavellian ideas of Nationalism.

You know something is wrong when people who will hover over any chance to cry wolf about Democrats doing bad things (Obvious reference to Hilary Clinton here) and instead opt to criticize someone for philosophical or moral reasons. That's some Twilight Zone shit right there. Assange has already stated that he's a libertarian, in the American sense of the word, and believes in markets. Any genuine (intellectually honest) market-minded libertarian should realize the great service Assange is providing to the American people.

What right does a Government have to keep secrets from the people who give them their power? What gives them the right to take our money, and not tell us what they're doing with it? What happens if they fuck up something diplomatically, and we go to war, meanwhile the entire country is clueless as to what happened. What happens if our foreign policy that is being dictated behind closed doors, is what is making radical Muslims hate us, and all of it is being covered up by our Government?

The answer is simple. If you truly support limited Government or if you simply believe in the philosophy of liberty, there's no way you can possibly support a secret police agency (Such as the DHS, and it's various branches ranging from the CIA to the FBI) that actively keeps secrets and manipulates the minds of the American people. Secret Police have been used by virtually every authoritarian dictator/oligarchy since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter what they're called, they're Secret Police in form and function, and to me, that is nothing short of the ultimate legitimization of illegitimate Government power. Ergo, small-government Conservatism is epistemologically incompatible with the continued support of 'State Secrets' and State privilege.


inb4victim

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

If you wish to stick your head in the sand, that's your prerogative, not mine. It's already well-known that WikiLeaks has offered, publicly, multiple times, to collaborate with intelligence agencies to censor sensitive material. They've been turned down everytime. Your conjecture that they haven't offered a 'bonafide' offer is hilarious. How can you legitimately gauge whether or not they made a legit offer if they keep getting turned down? Oh right, you can't, and it just proves that Neo-Conservatives such as yourself are incapable of overcoming your intellectual bias towards people who challenge your 16th-century Machiavellian ideas of Nationalism.

You know something is wrong when people who will hover over any chance to cry wolf about Democrats doing bad things (Obvious reference to Hilary Clinton here) and instead opt to criticize someone for philosophical or moral reasons. That's some Twilight Zone shit right there. Assange has already stated that he's a libertarian, in the American sense of the word, and believes in markets. Any genuine (intellectually honest) market-minded libertarian should realize the great service Assange is providing to the American people.

What right does a Government have to keep secrets from the people who give them their power? What gives them the right to take our money, and not tell us what they're doing with it? What happens if they fuck up something diplomatically, and we go to war, meanwhile the entire country is clueless as to what happened. What happens if our foreign policy that is being dictated behind closed doors, is what is making radical Muslims hate us, and all of it is being covered up by our Government?

The answer is simple. If you truly support limited Government or if you simply believe in the philosophy of liberty, there's no way you can possibly support a secret police agency (Such as the DHS, and it's various branches ranging from the CIA to the FBI) that actively keeps secrets and manipulates the minds of the American people. Secret Police have been used by virtually every authoritarian dictator/oligarchy since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter what they're called, they're Secret Police in form and function, and to me, that is nothing short of the ultimate legitimization of illegitimate Government power. Ergo, small-government Conservatism is epistemologically incompatible with the continued support of 'State Secrets' and State privilege.


inb4victim

Who the fuck are you talking to? I said nothing about Democrats or anything else you mentioned. The sole focus of my comment was on Assange, his established pattern of behavior and the claim that he offered to collaborate.

So not a single quote from Assange or a sound byte to support your assertion?

[Crazycarl]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Who the fuck are you talking to? I said nothing about Democrats or anything else you mentioned.

LOL I don't know what he's talking about, either.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Innoc

I said nothing about Democrats or anything else you mentioned. The sole focus of my comment was on Assange, his established pattern of behavior and the claim that he offered to collaborate.

Clearly, but then my post branched out as an affront to your views on the WikiLeaks situation. Is it really that hard to follow? Usually fellows such as yourself will take any opportunity to stand atop a soapbox and spout about how bad Democrats are, and in this case, the Clinton leak scandal is an opportune moment for populist Right-wingers such as yourself to exploit the moment, but the fact that you guys are completely skipping out on playing politics in favor of *actually* applying philosophical principals (A rarity when it comes to populist righties) is something straight out of the Twilight Zone.

Originally Posted by Innoc

So not a single quote from Assange or a sound byte to support your assertion?

You're the one who made the assertion that Assange hadn't offered a 'bonafide offer of collaboration', not me. As I stated, anyone who has been following the WikiLeaks story would know that they offered to collaborate with intelligence/defense agencies to censor sensitive material. In fact, a very simple, 10-second Google search will justify my position as factual. On the other hand, your assertion that they didn't offer a true 'bonafide' offer, is something which has no factual basis, and moreover, is impossible to prove.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Clearly, but then my post branched out as an affront to your views on the WikiLeaks situation. Is it really that hard to follow? Usually fellows such as yourself will take any opportunity to stand atop a soapbox and spout about how bad Democrats are, and in this case, the Clinton leak scandal is an opportune moment for populist Right-wingers such as yourself to exploit the moment, but the fact that you guys are completely skipping out on playing politics in favor of *actually* applying philosophical principals (A rarity when it comes to populist righties) is something straight out of the Twilight Zone.

Generalizing about "people" like me makes you look stupid. Focus on what I asked and said and keep it there. Frankly I don't spend any time reading your stump speeches.

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

You're the one who made the assertion that Assange hadn't offered a 'bonafide offer of collaboration', not me. As I stated, anyone who has been following the WikiLeaks story would know that they offered to collaborate with intelligence/defense agencies to censor sensitive material. In fact, a very simple, 10-second Google search will justify my position as factual. On the other hand, your assertion that they didn't offer a true 'bonafide' offer, is something which has no factual basis, and moreover, is impossible to prove.

I did in fact make that assertion. If you scroll up you can see where I posted that earlier. I asked that as I was unable to find any legitimate news source with either a direct quote or sound byte from Wikileaks or even Assange himself. If it's good enough to show on some site in a dark corner of the net then it surely will make it onto some major source like bbc? msnbc? CNN? Drudge? Fox? None of them?

And then you can find the following quote from the article you linked:

WikiLeaks did not respond to a phone call and email message by TechNewsWorld seeking comment on the Pentagon's action.

So is this your only source? And that source cannot quote anything from Wikileaks?

I made my comments on Assange based on what I'd observed from his publicly visible actions in the past. I speculated based on his track record. Barring anything new...I stand by that.