# Assange Op Ed in The Australian newspaper



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths | The Australian

snip -

_I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly.* They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. *_

Er, the bold part - isn't that something you righties are always screaming on about? Sounds like you are on the same page as him.

snip
_WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, *then to click online to see the original document it is based on.* That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?_

For years I've been on US messageboards and the Cons are always whining about the bias of the MSM. Yet here is Assange not only reporting a story but giving you the means to the see the original docs the story is based on. And this is a bad thing?

Snip
_*People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not.* Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then *asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies.* _

Jillian - there goes your anti war theory. In fact, seems like you and him are on the same page...

Snip...LOL
* "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?*

Snip
_US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that *no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. *The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan.* NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting.* The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published._

There goes that theory...


----------



## jillian (Dec 7, 2010)

Are he and I on the same page About war? Well, probably about Iraq. But somehow I think he and I would disagree about how Israel should have handled Cast Lead....

However, I think his pretense at being a journalist is a bit late in the game since he has repeatedly said he is *not* a journo. I also think releasing gossip-filled docs purely out of spite serves no public purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement.   

I think the person who stole the documents should be charged with treason. But I think Assange should be charged with espionage. Let a jury sort it out.

Finally, I think there is a value to our ability to have candid conversations with diplomats around the world. I think he did a great deal of harm in that regard.

And yes, I know you disagree with me on all of the above.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

jillian said:


> Are he and I on the same page About war? Well, probably about Iraq. But somehow I think he and I would disagree about how Israel should have handled Cast Lead....
> 
> However, I think his pretense at being a journalist is a bit late in the game since he has repeatedly said he is *not* a journo. I also think releasing gossip-filled docs purely out of spite serves no public purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement.
> 
> ...



Please tell me which definitions of espionage he comes under...take your time...

es·pi·o·nage

noun
1.
the act or practice of spying.
2.
the use of spies by a government to discover the military and political secrets of other nations.
3.
the use of spies by a corporation or the like to acquire the plans, technical knowledge, etc., of a competitor: industrial espionage.

Why is it out of spite? Long bow to draw on that one, J. Did you read the link? The whole link? What makes you think it spite? He believes govts should be more transparent. So do I...


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.



Glad you are for freedom of speech and all....


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.
> ...



Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.

His domain names and merchant accounts are being cut off.

Works so far.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.
> 
> His domain names and merchant accounts are being cut off.
> 
> Works so far.



Not for long..they are being set up again...

They are in the public domain as fas as I'm concerned.

how about addressing the points I made in the OP, or is that too far of a stretch for you?


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.
> ...



No, if you host  them or provide merchant services, i.e. credit card payments to them, you can cut them off.  And that's what's happening.

Nothing "public domain" about that.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> No, if you host  them or provide merchant services, i.e. credit card payments to them, you can cut them off.  And that's what's happening.
> 
> Nothing "public domain" about that.



which has what to do with anything? People criticised Google for not taking a stand against the Chinese Govt for censorship. This is no different....


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

Assange will have to answer for how he came by that stolen material.

In the meantime, the free market is dealing with his sites.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/what-is-espionage.html

Espionage is a process which involves agents or technical means to obtain information which is not normally publically available. lt may also involve seeking to influence decision makers and opinion-formers to benefit the interests of a foreign power.


----------



## Revere (Dec 7, 2010)

I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 7, 2010)

He is an asshole and probably a narcissist.


----------



## jillian (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Please tell me which definitions of espionage he comes under...take your time...
> 
> es·pi·o·nage
> 
> ...



I wouldn't go by those general definitions of espionage... I would look at the definition as it is set forth in the criminal law since that is what controls in this circumstance:



> it is a crime to disclose classified information under the Espionage Act of 1917 (see 18 U.S. Code § 793, paragraph e). The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in Schenck vs. United States (1919). The Court ruled that "Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent." The First Amendment does not protect espionage.



ttp://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/replace_the_espionage_act

whether you agree or disagree that the above *should* be the law, it *is* the law. Like I said, charge him and let a jury sort it out after they hear all of the evidence.

why do i think it was spiteful? because no good can come of it. he isn't a whistle blower... 

had he disclosed that the last admin was lying about WMD's... *THAT* would have been useful.

This? Designed to destroy our ability to conduct diplomacy? Why? Because he wanted to embarrass the U.S., imo.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?



But he is guilty of espionage.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

jillian said:


> [q
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even by your definition he is not guilty. If you believe so, which parts are covered by his acts?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?
> ...



Not that I can see...even by J's definition


----------



## jillian (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > [q
> ...



he disclosed classified information. no?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



it seems with the caveat of "become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a *clear and present danger* that they will bring about the *substantive evils* which Congress has a right to prevent" according to the case law your quoted. He hasn't done that IMO...the bolded words are the important ones,,


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Whether you see it or not is not really the point. The point is how our DoJ sees it. He knowingly disseminated stolen classified information. It is vital to our national security that we are able to communicate with other countries without them being concerned that it will end up on the front page of the world's newspapers. You get that right?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Whether you see it or not is not really the point. The point is how our DoJ sees it. He knowingly disseminated stolen classified information. It is vital to our national security that we are able to communicate with other countries without them being concerned that it will end up on the front page of the world's newspapers. You get that right?



It is vital to your national security when it involves communiques that deserve that designation....I've seen nothing released so far that fall into that category. Most of it is just a bunch of office gossip.

And if other countries don't realise that this information was released without the permission of the US govt, then it's their problem, not yours.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Whether you see it or not is not really the point. The point is how our DoJ sees it. He knowingly disseminated stolen classified information. It is vital to our national security that we are able to communicate with other countries without them being concerned that it will end up on the front page of the world's newspapers. You get that right?
> ...



It's not the fucking information, it's the fact that it was released. It's the act that is important, not the information. Try and grasp that one, small - yet absolutely vital - fact. 



> And if other countries don't realise that this information was released without the permission of the US govt, then it's their problem, not yours.



Try and pay attention here..... That's is the issue for other governments. It's not about fucking permission... it's about a leak of sensitive information. Security agencies around the world take secrecy very, very seriously. If the US Government allows this leak to go unpunished.... and that fact that it happened at all.... are HUGELY damaging to our ability to work with the security agencies of other countries. Who the fuck is gonna want to share intel with us if it's gonna end up on the front page of the world's newspapers. 

You are not seeing the big picture. Try to step back and look at it from a different angle.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



CG...I see your point. It has been your MAIN point on all these Wikileaks threads. I don't see it as that important s'all...


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



It's my only point. The information being released is of no interest. My only interest is the national security of my country. You, naturally, won't see that as important - you're not an American. I bet you'd see it differently if it was your country facing terrorist attacks. Then, you'd be baying for this guy's blood instead of whining about his right to publish stolen information.


----------



## jillian (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



hence my saying leave it to a jury. they would have far more information than we do and will assess if there is/was a danger.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> [
> It's my only point. The information being released is of no interest. My only interest is the national security of my country. You, naturally, won't see that as important - you're not an American. I bet you'd see it differently if it was your country facing terrorist attacks. Then, you'd be baying for this guy's blood instead of whining about his right to publish stolen information.



1) Nothing in those docs have been of national security
2) We have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq
3) What do terrorist attacks have to do with these latest releases.
4) Nothing whining about it. Just stating it.
5) And no, being in the media, as you are, I don't have a problem with anything he has released so far. I agree almost entirely with his OP in The Australian, which is linked to in my OP...


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You still don't get the point. I'm not interested in whether the information concerns national security. The problem - and it is a real, actual problem - is that security agencies around the world are - as we speak - refusing to share information with our security agencies.... because they cannot guarantee that it won't leak. It is absolutely fucking vital that we share information. Can you, for one minute, forget about the information and focus on the leak. 

Surely to God, you're smart enough to realize the implication of other countries not sharing intel with the US? What if they are - without realizing it - sitting on information which.... when put together with information we already have - might stop another 9/11? You might think that's not a big deal, but I do.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.



Please don't confuse international government totalitarianism with the free market.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> You still don't get the point. I'm not interested in whether the information concerns national security. The problem - and it is a real, actual problem - is that security agencies around the world are - as we speak - refusing to share information with our security agencies.... because they cannot guarantee that it won't leak. It is absolutely fucking vital that we share information. Can you, for one minute, forget about the information and focus on the leak.
> 
> Surely to God, you're smart enough to realize the implication of other countries not sharing intel with the US? What if they are - without realizing it - sitting on information which.... when put together with information we already have - might stop another 9/11? You might think that's not a big deal, but I do.



Ah, well, that is where the great game comes in. For one, it is quid pro quo. I would say the US's ability to collect information is a lot more thorough than most other countries. I think if most other countries refused to share they would be cutting off their noses to spite their face. The US has a lot more to offer than vice versa.

As for not sharing vital information, it is risk - a calculated risk. Can you imagine what David Cameron would do - or feel like - if another terrorist attack happened on US soil and MI5 or 6 had info on it and didn't disclose it and it became public? Can you imagine the outcry? 

IOW, I think your worry is overstated....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.
> ...



I know they govt's don't play nice, and I am not that naive to think they would. But to me there is a difference between playing nice and doing what is necessary to keep your country safe. I think half the time these idiots are running around wasting time and tax payer's money. In fact, that is most of what I take out of these leaks.


----------



## Kalam (Dec 7, 2010)

All of you who have spoken out against open governance in this thread have been successfully duped into believing that your "freedoms" are contingent on your government's ability to commit atrocities in secret. All of the leaks up to this point have served either to expose blatant wrongdoing or to bring diplomatic negotiations to the public's attention. My only gripe with Wikileaks is that they clearly aren't telling us everything that they know. The powers that be and those who refuse to question their actions can all go to hell. Oh, and remember:


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > You still don't get the point. I'm not interested in whether the information concerns national security. The problem - and it is a real, actual problem - is that security agencies around the world are - as we speak - refusing to share information with our security agencies.... because they cannot guarantee that it won't leak. It is absolutely fucking vital that we share information. Can you, for one minute, forget about the information and focus on the leak.
> ...



Again, I don't really care what you think. I care about the US being able to stop terrorist attacks, I care about Americans around the world being safe in foreign countries (me among them), I care about my brothers and friends in the Military... you're opinion... meh, not so much. If we want Assange, we will get Assange. I hope Obama and Holder have the backbone to do the hard job... even if it pisses off a few fools who think it's no big deal.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Julian Assange and Wikileaks sex allegations

The poll at the end of this piece. So far over 12,000 poeple have answered it. The SMH is considered a right/centrist paper. Over 90 percent think Assange is doing the right thing...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Again, I don't really care what you think. I care about the US being able to stop terrorist attacks, I care about Americans around the world being safe in foreign countries (me among them), I care about my brothers and friends in the Military... you're opinion... meh, not so much. If we want Assange, we will get Assange. I hope Obama and Holder have the backbone to do the hard job... even if it pisses off a few fools who think it's no big deal.



I care about all people being safe from terrorist attacks - any undeserved attacks in fact.

Dunno what Obama or Holder can do. Still can't see anything that has been done is wrong.

I am worried about the frothing at the mouth of the right on this. These are the people who hold their hands on their hearts and talk about freedom of speech, yadda, yadda, yadda, but whenever anything like this happens they are first who want to hang, draw and quarter somebody with little or no reason. Kalam's pics sum things up nicely IMO.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Yes, for the most part, but the most important thing to me is that Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton should be in jail not Bradley Manning or Julian Assange.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I don't really care what you think. I care about the US being able to stop terrorist attacks, I care about Americans around the world being safe in foreign countries (me among them), I care about my brothers and friends in the Military... you're opinion... meh, not so much. If we want Assange, we will get Assange. I hope Obama and Holder have the backbone to do the hard job... even if it pisses off a few fools who think it's no big deal.
> ...



I'm not frothing at the mouth. I simply want to protect US Citizens - along with the citizens of our allies - from terrorists. If you think leaking a bunch of shit is no big deal, then, fine. Personally, I see it differently - and I have very valid reasons for seeing differently. Those who think this is no big deal, are the ones who will be screaming like baby banshees if we get another attack. Particularly if it then emerges that several countries had information that could have prevented it. We have to be realistic. Some countries don't play nice when collecting information... we may not like the way that information was obtained.... it may have been obtained from locals who's lives would be in danger if that information ended up on Wikileaks.... there are lots of really valid reasons why we keep information secret. Because that information can sometimes get people killed. Does your 'right to know' outweigh the security of others? No. 

Assange has no idea what he's printing... he has no idea of the consequences and, more importantly - he doesn't care. What he did was to knowingly disseminate stolen confidential information.... that is espionage. You may not agree but our DoJ are building a case against him.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



If naivety was illegal, you'd be in prison too. Bradley Manning is a traitor - not technically, but most certainly in the spirit of treason.... Assange is guilty of espionage. Personally, I'd like to see Manning get the DP - assuming he is found guilty. And Assange can rot in jail... in the general population - with Americans.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 7, 2010)

Revere said:


> Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.



Good point.

Just because he is given information that he should not have, does not give him the right to share it with everyone.

If I am given stolen Rolexes, and I sell them, should I be considered innocent?


----------



## Kalam (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> What he did was to knowingly disseminate stolen confidential information.... that is espionage.



That is completely inconsistent with notable court precedents. Pentagon Papers?

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


----------



## Kalam (Dec 7, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.
> ...



Is Wikileaks selling the information they've obtained?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 7, 2010)

Kalam said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...




Selling or not, it doesn't matter.

If I was given stolen Rolexes, and I gave them away to my friends, or even to random, I would still be an accomplice to a crime.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 7, 2010)

Kalam said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Whether they sell it or give it away is of no consequence. It is against the laws of the US to disseminate information stolen from the US Government. It is called espionage. 

If you receive stolen property and give it to someone else, you are still guilty of handling stolen property. The money is of no consequence.


----------



## daveman (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Whether you see it or not is not really the point. The point is how our DoJ sees it. He knowingly disseminated stolen classified information. It is vital to our national security that we are able to communicate with other countries without them being concerned that it will end up on the front page of the world's newspapers. You get that right?
> ...


Do you have original classification authority?  No?  Then your opinion of the classification of the stolen information is worthless.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Let "freedom" ring... etc... etc...

Not technically a traitor means not a traitor at all, by the way.  To label him a traitor would require a certain amount of judicial activism.  Surely you don't want that?


----------



## daveman (Dec 7, 2010)

Kalam said:


> All of you who have spoken out against open governance in this thread have been successfully duped into believing that your "freedoms" are contingent on your government's ability to commit atrocities in secret. All of the leaks up to this point have served either to expose blatant wrongdoing or to bring diplomatic negotiations to the public's attention. My only gripe with Wikileaks is that they clearly aren't telling us everything that they know. The powers that be and those who refuse to question their actions can all go to hell


So can America-hating bastards who want to see my nation damaged in any possible way.


----------



## daveman (Dec 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Do you support what Manning did?  If so, why?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 7, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Absolutely.  Civil disobedience is important to keep an out of control government in check, and Manning exposed criminal activities that our State Dept. has been involved in.  He should be praised, and Hillary and Condoleezza should be in prison.


----------



## Kalam (Dec 7, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > All of you who have spoken out against open governance in this thread have been successfully duped into believing that your "freedoms" are contingent on your government's ability to commit atrocities in secret. All of the leaks up to this point have served either to expose blatant wrongdoing or to bring diplomatic negotiations to the public's attention. My only gripe with Wikileaks is that they clearly aren't telling us everything that they know. The powers that be and those who refuse to question their actions can all go to hell
> ...



I've never made a habit of singling America out and don't plan to start now. I'm more eager for releases that expose corruption in the governments of the "Muslim World" because those are the governments that I want to see fall apart.


----------



## Kalam (Dec 7, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Selling or not, it doesn't matter.
> 
> If I was given stolen Rolexes, and I gave them away to my friends, or even to random, I would still be an accomplice to a crime.



Rolexes and information are of a completely different nature, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



So is yours..shrug..

I have read some of them, and they are not worthy of such a designation.

Hey, if you want to give your govt carte blanche and pull the wool over your eyes, more power to you...


----------



## Kalam (Dec 7, 2010)

California Girl said:


> It is against the laws of the US to disseminate information stolen from the US Government. It is called espionage.



Then why didn't the Supreme Court rule against the NYT when they published the Pentagon Papers?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Aren't you righties always complaining there is too much govt; that there are too many bureaucrats; that they're all corrupt and incompetent; that they are answerable to the people? Now Assange is proving your point by the crap they get up to, and you want to vilify him. How strange.

Hey Daveman, what gives some faceless bureaucrat the right to decide what I should hear or not hear, or is all of the above wrong? You love and trust your govt?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 7, 2010)

Kalam said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Selling or not, it doesn't matter.
> ...



Of course.  But they are similar if they are stolen.


----------



## Samson (Dec 7, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.
> ...



Was there a point to the OP?

***yawn***


****stretch****


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 7, 2010)

Samson said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Trolling again....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?
> ...



What information has he released? Nothing that would harm the military. The only information so far as been what the government has been doing, which has not been of any military value. If  Assange  is silenced who's to say the government will stop there?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Dec 8, 2010)

You guys really gotta simmer down. Assange can't seriously be tried under the Espionage Act. The only people that can be tried are the people who actually, literally obtained the documents and gave them away. Wikileaks, which is a media organization, cannot be tried (First Amendment) unless you change the law and proceed to try The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and Der Spiegel, not to mention the New York Times which got them from the Guardian. In fact, the NYT itself along with all the others started publishing coverage and cables even BEFORE Wikileaks did, because it was under attack at the time. 

I nevertheless love the way this issue is splitting the bases up, you got your bash-America crowd, your crazy no-goverment tea partiers, your anarchos, libertarians, etc, and on the other side you have your jingoists which come in red and blue, of course. 

And speaking of that, should people be tried for this in the first place? Obviously not. I hope this sends signals that spread far and wide. I want to see wikileaks of everything, the banks, the Chinese Communisty Party, I wanna see French Wikileaks, German Wikileaks, RUSSIAN Wikileaks. I wanna see total glasnost n' perestroika all over again, man. Obviously that personal privacy is sacrosanct, but the government? The government is THE PEOPLE's, it can't keep secrets from the PEOPLE, and now they fuckin' know. 

THAT'S RIGHT, MAKE 'EM PISS 'ER PANTS, JULIAN!


----------



## California Girl (Dec 8, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> You guys really gotta simmer down. Assange can't seriously be tried under the Espionage Act. The only people that can be tried are the people who actually, literally obtained the documents and gave them away. Wikileaks, which is a media organization, cannot be tried (First Amendment) unless you change the law and proceed to try The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and Der Spiegel, not to mention the New York Times which got them from the Guardian. In fact, the NYT itself along with all the others started publishing coverage and cables even BEFORE Wikileaks did, because it was under attack at the time.
> 
> I nevertheless love the way this issue is splitting the bases up, you got your bash-America crowd, your crazy no-goverment tea partiers, your anarchos, libertarians, etc, and on the other side you have your jingoists which come in red and blue, of course.
> 
> ...



Whatever the rantings of keyboard warriors, the US Government is considering Espionage charges against Assange.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 8, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?
> ...


Ordinarily, I believe the process is that  we try an individual, evaluate the evidence, and then find them guilty  or innocent as appropriate. Is it just you or is the left wing generally  now supportive of just throwing people in prison without bothering with  that whole 'due process' thing?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I think you could make a case for whistleblowing if he actually exposed any criminal activity...like proof of torture or war crimes. He didn't. I would be surprised, and in fact disappointed, to find that our government did not keep tabs on other governments, friendly or not. I'd also be surprised if other governments didn't keep tabs on ours.

There is nothing in what was released that anyone needs to know...except that the State Department is doing what it is supposed to do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You're hinting that it's ok if it's Bush but if it doesn't expose anything that Bush did, then he,  Assange  did wrong. I'm glads he did it. As long as nothing military was exposed I don't care.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Whatever the rantings of keyboard warriors, the US Government is considering Espionage charges against Assange.



Who gives a shit what the US thinks....


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Manning is a little thief who thought the rules didn't apply to him.  He's since found out that actions have consequences.  That's a novel concept to you leftists, isn't it?

Maybe you can visit him in jail and organize candlelight vigils.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kalam said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Uh huh.  Yet you're here on an American board cheering on treason and espionage.  Go figure.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Again...worthless.


Dr Grump said:


> Hey, if you want to give your govt carte blanche and pull the wool over your eyes, more power to you...


Time to grow up, Skippy.  You don't need to know everything that goes on.  That's never going to change.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Assange is not American so cannot be tried for treason. Do I need to bold it and put it in caps before you finally understand. As for espionage - doesn't even make the dictionary definition, let alone any other trumped up crap..


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Hey Daveman, what gives some faceless bureaucrat the right to decide what I should hear or not hear, or is all of the above wrong?


Because some faceless bureaucrat has no reason to believe that you wouldn't give information to those trying to harm the nation, information that would help them to do so.

Neither do I, for that matter.


Dr Grump said:


> You love and trust your govt?


I don't love it.  Our government is the worst one in the world...except for all the others.  As far as trust goes, yes, I trust most in government to do the right thing by the nation.  The leadership...not so much.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...


Locations of sensitive installations is of military value.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Nor do i need govt employees to tell me what is worthy of being tagged "national security" and what isn't....if you want to be a sheep, more power to you...bbbaaa...


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever the rantings of keyboard warriors, the US Government is considering Espionage charges against Assange.
> ...



And yet, you're here, and none of us are on a NZ message board.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Manning is the traitor, idiot.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


  This is the real world, dude.  Your insistence that there should be unicorns roaming the meadows makes for a nice leftist wet dream, but it's never going to happen.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Daveman, what gives some faceless bureaucrat the right to decide what I should hear or not hear, or is all of the above wrong?
> ...



1) And yet you follow said faceless bureaucrat like a little sheep all the while whining and bitching about your govt..go figure.

2) I wouldn't say your govt is the worst in the world by a long shot. However most European, Australian and definitely NZ are much better forms of govt by a long shot...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Finding the opinions of various people - including those from the US - interesting - is a mile away from actually giving a shit what a particular country thinks...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> This is the real world, dude.  Your insistence that there should be unicorns roaming the meadows makes for a nice leftist wet dream, but it's never going to happen.



And you thinking that these 'leaks' have actually done any harm in the 'real world' just reinforces how stupid you really are...


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Dec 8, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > You guys really gotta simmer down. Assange can't seriously be tried under the Espionage Act. The only people that can be tried are the people who actually, literally obtained the documents and gave them away. Wikileaks, which is a media organization, cannot be tried (First Amendment) unless you change the law and proceed to try The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and Der Spiegel, not to mention the New York Times which got them from the Guardian. In fact, the NYT itself along with all the others started publishing coverage and cables even BEFORE Wikileaks did, because it was under attack at the time.
> ...



Well, of course, the key word there was "seriously." Just because the US can't _seriously_ try Assange doesn't mean they can't just mock-try him and put him in jail, but that has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with power and revenge.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > This is the real world, dude.  Your insistence that there should be unicorns roaming the meadows makes for a nice leftist wet dream, but it's never going to happen.
> ...



Wait until sources start turning up dead.  When that happens, Manning and Assange should be charged with murder.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Stealing credit card information, banking information, physical DNA, etc... is a crime.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Leftist? 

Maybe I can, I'd love to chat with him.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not according to the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Show me the evidence that this was ever done...and I don't mean hysterical ranting about it, I mean the actual concrete evidence.

This sounds more and more like the stupid hysteria over climate science when things were leaked and taken out of context.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Are you saying you want the leaked files from WikiLeaks to be posted, or are you calling that the "hysterical ranting?"


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Yes...post the cables in question.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





> ¶B. (S/NF) Reporting officers should include as much of the
> following information as possible when they have information
> relating to persons linked to : office and
> 
> ...



Cable Viewer


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I was unaware of that. There's something terribly wrong here and the wrong is in the government. I would not doubt the government released some of the information to make  Assange look bad. The government motto for the last 70 years as been the end justifies the means.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Is that the cable in it's entirety? If so, it is very hard to draw a conclusion.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No, I quoted the relevant part, but the link is there if you'd like to look at it further.  It's not that hard to draw a conclusion.  American officials were told to steal biometric and credit card information, among other things, from UN officials, and this cable came from the Secretary of State.  These are criminal acts.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I'm not going to that site...so unless you post it in its entirety and tell me the context I can't form an opinion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You know he can't do that it would b against board rules and copy right infringment.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I don't know that it would be against board rules or copyright infringement, but I'm not going to copy and paste the entire cable, which is fairly long, regardless.  However, it doesn't matter.  I copied the relevant portions of the cable, if she can't form an opinion from what I've supplied she won't be able to form an opinion from the rest of the cable I don't think.  As to why she doesn't want to go to the website I have no idea.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



What were those criminal activities by our State Dept.?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The cables are not copyrighted, there would be no copyright violation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Heres the post in question

Quote: Originally Posted by Ravi  
I'm not going to that site...so unless you post it in its entirety and tell me the context I can't form an opinion.

Ravi asked him to post the whole article which would be against board rules.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The board rules refer to copyrighted material - articles from newspapers, etc. Most everything on the internet is copyrighted material.

The cables are not copyrighted material. They are now public domain, which means you're free to post as much of them as you want, according to copyright law.

The board rules may be different, I'm not a mod or admin. But there would be no copyright violation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



I'm not getting into a debate over board rules
Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. *Never post an article in its entirety*. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material.


End of discussion


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


You missed the relevant part of that rule. (The part I highlighted).

The cables are NOT an "article". 

This argument is retarded, I'm not going to continue it. But you might want to do a bit of research into copyright law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



One more time I said it was against board rules. Now I'm through


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 8, 2010)

This guy should be kept in jail for as long as possible.  He is a menace to society.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Whatever you say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> This guy should be kept in jail for as long as possible.  He is a menace to society.



Why?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> One more time I said it was against board rules. Now I'm through



You are wrong on both counts. The board rules only apply to articles and copyrighted material. The cables are not articles nor are they copyrighted...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> This guy should be kept in jail for as long as possible.  He is a menace to society.



He is not even close to being a menace to society. He should be feted as a hero, not a criminal...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > One more time I said it was against board rules. Now I'm through
> ...



ask one of the mods I posted the rule read it or ask them


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 8, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> This guy should be kept in jail for as long as possible.  He is a menace to society.



So it's a "menace to society" to tell people the truth?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > This guy should be kept in jail for as long as possible.  He is a menace to society.
> ...



He's a menace to a corrupted government.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't need to ask them, I know the rules. I've been here four years longer than you, so am au fait with them. If you can't admit you are wrong, fine. Doesn't make you right though, just makes you stupid....


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



All governments are corrupt, to some extent. The status quo is corrupt.

But he's not going to damage anything. The status quo will continue, politicians will remain corrupt, and wikileaks will just fade into the backround as another non-issue.

Remember when there were 30 threads a day about the "Ground Zero Mosque"?

They're still building it. Why no more threads about it?


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


But stealing classified information is not?


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Yes, leftist.  Conservatives don't cheer on traitors and spies.  


Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Maybe I can, I'd love to chat with him.


Maybe you can send him a picture of your hands.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


He gave aid to our enemies.

Looks like you're wrong.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> But stealing classified information is not?



Is Manning being dealth with?


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Copyright law doesn't prohibit it...materials produced by government workers as part of their official duties are in the public domain.

What prohibits it, however, is 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it...
...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.​
Don't post anything here.  It's a violation of Federal law.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


No, no copyright violation, but a violation of Federal law.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > One more time I said it was against board rules. Now I'm through
> ...


You didn't do much research, did you?  Otherwise you'd have found out posting classified materials is against the law.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > This guy should be kept in jail for as long as possible.  He is a menace to society.
> ...


Moron.  What is it with you 'tards?  Why do you love criminals?


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > But stealing classified information is not?
> ...


Yes.  So will Assange, because he violated American law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...





daveman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Dave I said I wasn't going to discuss this anymore but I was mainly talking about board rules specificly this part in the rules.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material.

I think this board rule is a two part rule
One part of this rule is addressing posting an article
and the other part of that rule is addresing copyright materals.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Sure he could. He could leave off a couple of "ands" and "thes".


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


There's no context, Kev. I have no idea what prompted that cable or who actually sent it. 

Details do matter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



That would be dishonest.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Which has what to do with copyright law on this board? Hint: Nothing....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



He is not a criminal.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not in America he didn't. You sure you want to go down that path vis-a-vis the laws of Iraq or Afghanistan that your troops have violated? Or are you one of those asswipes that think that all law - anywhere in the world - is American law?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> There's no context, Kev. I have no idea what prompted that cable or who actually sent it.
> 
> Details do matter.



Unless the US Secretary of State is immune to your own statutes, it is illegal to try and obtain people's passwords and personal information without their consent. It's call hacking...

...so context doesn't matter unless the first part of my first para is true...


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 Says the moron. It wouldn't be dishonest, it would be keeping within the rules. And as has been pointed out to you, this is not copyrighted material.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > There's no context, Kev. I have no idea what prompted that cable or who actually sent it.
> ...


Sure it does...were these people suspected of wrong doing, for instance, and was there a warrant to obtain the information? There is no way of knowing the context from what has been posted.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Sure it does...were these people suspected of wrong doing, for instance, and was there a warrant to obtain the information? There is no way of knowing the context from what has been posted.



Hillary is said to be slightly embarrassed by the cable, which suggests that what she was doing wasn't kosha. If it was kosha I would expect her reaction to be either one of defiance or no comment at all....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You're a horses ass read the board rules


----------



## Ravi (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it does...were these people suspected of wrong doing, for instance, and was there a warrant to obtain the information? There is no way of knowing the context from what has been posted.
> ...


Said to be? 

My dear, you are said to be a rabid left wing Ozophile fucktard.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Yes, and I showed you the law which _does_ apply.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Really?  Receiving stolen state property is not illegal if you're not in the nation that the property was stolen from?

Wow.  That's tremendously _stupid_.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



It's funny the way you pretend your opinion matters.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



However, it's clear that WikiLeaks does not own the copyright of the cable that I referenced, so would it apply?  I don't know.  I wouldn't post the whole thing either way, like I said.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Stealing credit card information among other things.  I've detailed it in previous posts.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It shouldn't be.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well I'm not a leftist, but neither did I say I was a conservative.

I guess I could, but I don't see why I would do that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



WikiLeaks is a declared enemy?  When was that resolution passed?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Oopsy daisy.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



I believe you're the one defending criminals.  The U.S. government.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What prompted the cable is irrelevant to the issue.  There's nothing that could have prompted this cable that would somehow make stealing this information legal.  As for who sent it, it's signed "CLINTON" and was sent from the office of the Secretary of State.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


But it is, your incredibly simplistic worldview notwithstanding.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it does...were these people suspected of wrong doing, for instance, and was there a warrant to obtain the information? There is no way of knowing the context from what has been posted.
> ...



Not to mention had there been a warrant they would have provided that information by now.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Isn't that what we're all doing on this message board?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Civil disobedience.  It's a wonderful thing.  Violating unjust laws and exposing the real crimes that the state is committing.  Did you want to make a statement on Hillary and Condoleezza's crimes?  Or is that ok since it was "classified?"


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Uh huh.


Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I guess I could, but I don't see why I would do that.


I was riffing on some idiot leftists who decided to post pictures of their hands somewhere to show support for the victims of the Indonesian tsunami in '04, instead of actually doing anything helpful.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


This is an American board, not a Kiwi board.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not too many "leftists" support a completely free market the way I do.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I have no evidence of any crimes, and since the material was never officially declassified, I cannot legally look at it.

You'll just have to understand that I'm not going to take your word for it.


----------



## daveman (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Just curious...how old are you?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So?  If there's a New Zealand politics board out there that I decided to post at then I'd certainly hope they'd accept my opinions without dismissing them on the basis that I'm an American.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So you're refusing to look at the evidence, and you're not going to take my word for it.  Sounds like you're sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and stomping your feet rather than addressing the issue.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I sense my opinion is about to be dismissed because of my age, but I am 22 years old.


----------



## Kalam (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Most of the leaks I care about deal with issues that are certainly of little interest to you, ie:

Cable Viewer
Cable Viewer

I must say, though; watching folks like you whine and call proponents of open government "traitors" and "liberals" amuses me to no end.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Strawman...next....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



More right-wing US arrogance. Do you guys ever get sick of your holier than thou attitude?


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 8, 2010)

Kalam said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Watching a Muslim whose ideology preaches fascism talking about open government amuses me.  Allahu Akbar  LOL


----------



## Revere (Dec 8, 2010)

What do attacks on Mastercard, Visa, and Paypal have to do with whistleblowing on the US government?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> What do attacks on Mastercard, Visa, and Paypal have to do with whistleblowing on the US government?



Are you referring to the hackers who attacked those companies?


----------



## Revere (Dec 8, 2010)

Yes, the Wikileaks co-conspirators.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> Yes, the Wikileaks co-conspirators.



They have nothing to do with WikiLeaks, other than supporting them.  The hackers are criminals who should be prosecuted.  They're taking their anger out on companies that really had no choice but to comply with the U.S. government.  Those companies are as much victims as WikiLeaks is.


----------



## Revere (Dec 8, 2010)

Then they have everything to do with them.  It's a crime network.

The US government did not crash their sites.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> Then they have everything to do with them.  It's a crime network.
> 
> The US government did not crash their sites.



Umm no.  These hackers are acting on their own, not with WikiLeaks.  Unless you have some evidence that WikiLeaks ordered the attacks?

No, but the U.S. government applied pressure to these companies to stop doing business with WikiLeaks, which is the complaint of these hackers.


----------



## Revere (Dec 8, 2010)

You're a stupid, immature asshole.  Grow up, shit face.

What does the web site of Swedish authority that is prosecuting him and Sarah Palin's website have to do with any steps  the US government took?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> You're a stupid, immature asshole.  Grow up, shit face.
> 
> What does the web site of Swedish authority that is prosecuting him and Sarah Palin's website have to do with any steps  the US government took?



"Grow up, shit face."

Are you serious?


----------



## Revere (Dec 8, 2010)

Yeah, you're what?  20?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> Yeah, you're what?  20?



22 actually, which was posted in this very thread not an hour ago.  Judging from your response, you're what?  14?  15?


----------



## Revere (Dec 8, 2010)

No other excuse for your naked stupidity and disregard for private property.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> No other excuse for your naked stupidity and disregard for private property.



So that's a yes on being 14 or 15?


----------



## Kalam (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> You're a stupid, immature asshole.  Grow up, shit face.



Oh, God.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 8, 2010)

Kalam said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > You're a stupid, immature asshole.  Grow up, shit face.
> ...



God is real.  the pagan moon god Allah, not so much.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> No other excuse for your naked stupidity and disregard for private property.



What private property?


----------



## jillian (Dec 8, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



it matters as much as any of our 'opinions'.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



I very much think what Assange has done is wrong..but there is no easy way for this country to charge him with any thing. The only thing I can come up with is receiving stolen property..and even that is dubious.

People have gone way overboard with both Assange and Manning. Some are calling these people terrorists. That's ridiculous.

Assange turned himself in to police today as well. Hardly what any terrorist would do.

And Manning's lawyers could well use the Oliver North defense..in which they argued that while what he did was wrong..his underlying "love of country" should be taken into consideration. In that..he thought he was doing something in the best interest of the nation.


----------



## Revere (Dec 8, 2010)

Uh, Assange is only in custody for not using a condom.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 8, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



"god" and "allah" are about as real as pixie dust and unicorns. And responsible for more misery and death then "they" deserve.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

Revere said:


> You're a stupid, immature asshole.  Grow up, shit face.
> 
> What does the web site of Swedish authority that is prosecuting him and Sarah Palin's website have to do with any steps  the US government took?



What does a third party who received leaked documents got to do with trying to get the guy done over for espionage....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Go and troll another thread you racist twerp...there are plenty of Israel/Pal threads on this board where you can go get your jollies...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 9, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



At one time I thought Alex Jones was a nut case but know I don't know anymore. What the hell, here's a video of Alex Jones giving his opinion  on what is happening.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peR4xkczFW0&feature=sub[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 9, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



So, according to you anyone talking about another person religious beliefs is a racist?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 9, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


It isn't irrelevant. For instance it could be following on the heels of a cable that listed names of people that were suspected of having ties to terrorism and saying instructions on what to look for coming in the next cable.  You watch way to many conspiracy shows, I'm guessing.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 9, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I wasn't meaning to insult you, just humorously point out that *said to be* is meaningless. It's like saying Obama is *said to be* born in Kenya.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Kalam said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Who's doing that?  I'm calling traitors and spies traitors and spies.  I'm calling those who support them leftists, because that's what leftists do.  Never met a criminal they didn't love.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


When I show up on a Kiwi board telling you how you should run your country, then you'll have a point.  Meanwhile, all we have to deal with here is left-wing New Zealander arrogance.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Like I said, when I show up on a Kiwi board and tell him how to run his country...


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


No, not dismissed, but age is a factor.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I CAN'T look at the evidence.  The information was not properly declassified, and while I have a current SECRET clearance, I do not have need-to-know.

You see, I take security seriously, unlike that little bastard Manning.


----------



## jillian (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



That would be valid if what we do didn't have an effect on other countries. And I suspect our gathering information on other countries is EXACTLY the type of thing that would be of interest.

I always try to look at it this way... in analyzing any situation... what would *we* say if it were done to us?

So, feel free to go on a kiwi board, but i'm wondering how much NZ policy affects the U.S.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


If you're telling them how to handle their internal affairs, they'd have every right to.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Note:  "Racism" does _not_ mean "anything a leftist doesn't like".


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Some people have used that line of thinking to advocate that everyone in the world should be allowed to vote in our Presidential elections.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 9, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You're talking about UN officials having ties to terrorism and _I_ watch conspiracy shows?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No, it's really not.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I don't think you refusing to look at it has anything to do with security, considering the rest of the world has already looked at it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



It's called giving an opinion, and that's the purpose of a message board.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Indirectly.  Experience is what matters most.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


You think wrong.  "Everybody else is doing it!" is a childish excuse.  "I'm not doing it because it's wrong" is the mature and honorable way to be.


----------



## daveman (Dec 9, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


No argument there.  But don't pretend the opinions of non-citizens carry a lot of weight.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Like I said, when I show up on a Kiwi board and tell him how to run his country...



When America keeps its nose out of everybody else's business, I might take you opinion under consideration...until then I'll what I like...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> No argument there.  But don't pretend the opinions of non-citizens carry a lot of weight.



And you think yours carry a lot of weight?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Marc39 said:
> ...




No, racism means not liking somebody due to their racial or ethnic background. Go read Marc's posts sometimes instead of shooting from the lip...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> When I show up on a Kiwi board telling you how you should run your country, then you'll have a point.  Meanwhile, all we have to deal with here is left-wing New Zealander arrogance.



Like I said, if you can persuade your govt not to interfere with other countries ALL the time, your _opinion _on the subject might mean something. 

And feel free to criticise my country....

Only in right-wing US neocon land am I considered a leftie. In my own country I'm a centrist sometimes leaning to the right. When are you marginalised people going to realise that with most normal Americans and most of the rest of the western world, you guys are the freak show...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So you're saying my opinion is less valid than yours because I may not have as much "experience" as you, and Dr. Grump's opinion is less valid than yours because he's from New Zealand.  How about you just discuss the issues rather than looking for a reason to dismiss people's opinions?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Now it sounds like you're just making up excuses as you go along because you don't want to look at the evidence that the government is engaged in criminal activities.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 9, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



A non-citizen's opinion carries just as much weight as a citizen's.  That you want to dismiss his opinion because you don't want to discuss the issue is not Dr. Grump's fault.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 11, 2010)

Where'd Daveman slink off to?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So you're saying my opinion is less valid than yours because I may not have as much "experience" as you, and Dr. Grump's opinion is less valid than yours because he's from New Zealand.  How about you just discuss the issues rather than looking for a reason to dismiss people's opinions?



That would require actually debating the issues on the merits of each side. Can't have that now.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, when I show up on a Kiwi board and tell him how to run his country...
> ...


Well, take heart.  American leftists will kiss your ass because you don't like America.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > No argument there.  But don't pretend the opinions of non-citizens carry a lot of weight.
> ...


If I was on a Kiwi board, I wouldn't think so.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Yeah.  When was the last time you criticized a fellow lefty for being racist?

I'd hold my breath, but I know better.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > When I show up on a Kiwi board telling you how you should run your country, then you'll have a point.  Meanwhile, all we have to deal with here is left-wing New Zealander arrogance.
> ...


"Marginalized"?  Guess you didn't hear about our recent election, huh?  

In case you haven't noticed, I don't much give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, and no one's ever been able to adequately explain why I should.  Most of it's a shithole anyway.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


You're not paying attention.  I dismiss people's opinions because they're arrived at with faulty reasoning or false data.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Yes, I can see where it might sound that way to someone with no respect for the rule of law.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If that were the case then my age and Grump's nationality wouldn't have been brought up at all.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Where'd Daveman slink off to?


Been playing in other threads.  Miss me?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Yes, I can see where it might sound that way to someone with no respect for the rule of law.



I see you have spent more time in this thread trying to dismiss the opinions of others using faulty or flawed reasoning than actually debating the issues at hand.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I can see where it might look like I have no respect for the rule of law for someone who throws in their lot with statists who support Assange being arrested without bail with no charges against him.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


No, not really.  Your age and his nationality have an impact on your views.  

I don't think now, at 47, the way I did when I was 22.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Modbert said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I can see where it might sound that way to someone with no respect for the rule of law.
> ...


How many times do I have to reiterate the same things?  Is there a minimum?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Bully for you.  But my age and his nationality have nothing to do with the facts of this issue.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> No, not really.  Your age and his nationality have an impact on your views.
> 
> I don't think now, at 47, the way I did when I was 22.



You're making the assumption that your views are better at the age of 47 than 22. That may not always be the case. Hence, your reasoning (or lack thereof) of using age as a way to dismiss Kevin's opinion is flawed.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Good think I haven't done that, huh?

I think he should be arrested and charged with espionage.  I wouldn't agree to bail, because he's a flight risk.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


But they have to do with your perception of the facts, don't they?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So you would say that he should be released from prison now then?  Since he hasn't been charged with anything?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Modbert said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > No, not really.  Your age and his nationality have an impact on your views.
> ...


I was a liberal when I was 22.  I got more conservative as I got older.  I believe liberal reasoning is flawed, because I know what it was like thinking as a liberal.  

Can you say you've seen the world from two sides?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I would say my political ideology has much to do with my perception of facts, not my age.  You see there are many older people who agree with me.  So it's ideology, not age.  Regardless, if my age is giving me an incorrect perception of the facts, why not simply correct that perception rather than bringing up my age?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


I say he should be extradited to the US and charged.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


You make a valid point.  I retract my line of questioning about your age.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



However, since he hasn't been charged with any crime anywhere you'd support him being let go?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> I was a liberal when I was 22.  I got more conservative as I got older.  I believe liberal reasoning is flawed, because I know what it was like thinking as a liberal.
> 
> Can you say you've seen the world from two sides?



And there are those who were Conservatives when they were 22 and became more Liberal as they got older. So your own personal experience has nothing to do with judging someone's else age. I've been posting on USMB for more than two years, and have seen arguments on many issues made by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Over time, I've changed my opinion on some issues due to life experiences and well-written arguments I've read. Point being is Kevin is perhaps the biggest Libertarian on the board and his opinion here is borne out of his ideology than age.

Never mind the fact that your definition of Conservative and someone else's could be radically different.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


No.  The US has reason to believe he's committed a crime.  The US and Great Britain have an extradition treaty.  Part 2 of that treaty"
...removed the requirement on the USA to provide prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK, requiring instead only reasonable suspicion.​
We certainly have reasonable suspicion, don't we?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Modbert said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I was a liberal when I was 22.  I got more conservative as I got older.  I believe liberal reasoning is flawed, because I know what it was like thinking as a liberal.
> ...


Ahem.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Ahem.



Well I give you credit for owning up to that then.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Where'd Daveman slink off to?
> ...



Where'd Dr Grump slink off to?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Modbert said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Ahem.
> ...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So you do support him being arrested without being charged with a crime.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Everyone I've spoken to with any knowledge of law says that he has NOT broken any US laws.

2 to 1 odds that we makes something up to prosecute him under, though.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


He should be held until he's extradited.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Guess you haven't talked to the Justice Department, huh?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I bet you haven't either.

I'm guessing you think he should be charged with espionage, right?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


Yes, I do, the opinions of your leftist paralegal friends notwithstanding.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I hate to be the one to break this to you dude, but being a dick doesn't help your argument. Just letting you know.

Are you a member of the bar?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


No.  Is this where you're going to say I can't have an opinion on legal matters?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No. If I did that, I'd be no better than you.

Just wondering what nonsense reason you're going to come up with to supposedly negate my opinion.

Let's see. I'm an American citizen and taxpayer. So you can't use that.
I'm not 22, so you can't use that either.


Can you think of anything?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


Well, there's always the old standby:

"You're wrong."


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 11, 2010)

daveman said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well, it's certainly not like I've never heard that before.

So I guess we'll just have to see what happens.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I don't like American hegemony or neocons. Fortunately, the latter are a minority in their own country, too...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



no you do not.


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Doesn't look like there's a damn thing you can do about it.  Too bad.


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


He DOESN'T have unauthorized classified materials in his possession?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And that attitude is why you get US citizens blown up in African embassies, Barracks in Lebanon and aeroplanes flown into buildings in NY...and...


....Doesn't look like there's a damn thing you can do about it.  Too bad....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No, he doesn't...now we're getting somewhere...


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Sure we can.  Kill the bastards.  Kill the living shit out of them until they're dead.  

News flash, Skippy:  *They're going to hate us no matter what*.  Hell, a splodeydope just blew himself up in Sweden, for cryin' out loud.  What they hell did they ever do to piss off the jihadis?  Swedish hegemony?  Hot blonde bikini neocons?


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Wow.  Maybe his lawyer can use that as his defense.  "No, he doesn't.  The defense rests."

  Denial isn't just a river etc.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Sure we can.  Kill the bastards.  Kill the living shit out of them until they're dead.
> 
> News flash, Skippy:  *They're going to hate us no matter what*.  Hell, a splodeydope just blew himself up in Sweden, for cryin' out loud.  What they hell did they ever do to piss off the jihadis?  Swedish hegemony?  Hot blonde bikini neocons?



But you can't kill them all, Sparky.

No, I doubt they would hate you anyway. You just say that to justify the killing you're doing over there already. I'd wager that if the US kept it's big nose out of other peoples' business, they would hardly register on the radar. But, you can't do that, can you...


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Sure we can.  Kill the bastards.  Kill the living shit out of them until they're dead.
> ...


I repeat:  What did Sweden do to piss them off?

You can ignore the question, but it's a valid one, and pretending it's not there is silly.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Here's a scenario.

A dude is walking along Pennsylvanai avenue. He spies a briefcase. He opens it and sees that it is from the Cuban embassy. He finds a whole lot of secret cables and documents. He sends half off to the Washington Times, the other half to Anne "the Man" Coulter. The times and Coulter both publish these sensitve documents. Castro demands they be extradited to Cuba on charges of espionage. Do they get extradited?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> I repeat:  What did Sweden do to piss them off?
> 
> You can ignore the question, but it's a valid one, and pretending it's not there is silly.



So one incident means all Muslims hate Sweden? The Swedes have troops over there. You will always get idiots of every ilk. What did some kids in a daycare centre do to piss of Timothy McVeigh?


----------



## jillian (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat:  What did Sweden do to piss them off?
> ...



no. not all muslims. but you do have to ask at some point what is it that would make someone blow himself up, taking innocents with him, just because someone made a comic he didn't like?

and yes, the terrorists would still hate us. that doesn't change. where the difference lies is among those who are moderate and aren't inclined to hate in the first instance.


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


  Yeah.  Assange just "found" them.  

You really need to contact his lawyer.  I think you have a winning strategy.

"Your honor, the Defense will show that my client has no unauthorized classified documents in his possession, and he just found them!"


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat:  What did Sweden do to piss them off?
> ...


Are you saying all Muslims hate America?


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Yeah.  Assange just "found" them.
> 
> You really need to contact his lawyer.  I think you have a winning strategy.
> 
> "Your honor, the Defense will show that my client has no unauthorized classified documents in his possession, and he just found them!"



But surely the problem is that he published them, not that he had them in his possession. That is the beginning and end of your argument. Let's say in my scenario the guy stole the documents, or got spies to procure them - Times editor and Coulter should be extradicted for espionage, right?

BTW, go look up the definition of espionage. Unless he hired spies to get the docs, it doesn't even pass the giggle test.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> [
> 
> no. not all muslims. but you do have to ask at some point what is it that would make someone blow himself up, taking innocents with him, just because someone made a comic he didn't like?
> 
> and yes, the terrorists would still hate us. that doesn't change. where the difference lies is among those who are moderate and aren't inclined to hate in the first instance.



1) I love this "not all Muslims, but".... Yes, some nutter blew himself up. Tim McVeigh blew up a building. Bhuddist monks immoclated themselves in Viet Nam. So all ex-servicemen are nutters and should be judged by McVeigh's actions? All monks like setting fire to themselves.
2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 12, 2010)

I find the outrage over Wikileaks hypocritical. It is curious how we so easily defend truth and then when it is uncomfortable run and hide. What happened to all this horsepucky about freedom of the press. How about the "Pentagon papers or deep Throat?" Or are the insiders the only ones allowed to spread information even when it is total BS.  

"Jack Goldsmith has seven thoughts on Wikileaks, and they may surprise you:
I find myself agreeing with those who think Assange is being unduly vilified. 
I do not understand why so much ire is directed at Assange and so little at the New York Times.  The War Against Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and the First Amendment | The Moderate Voice

"Julian Assange, founder of the notorious website WikiLeaks, should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
Ultimately, of the 251,287 leaked dispatches dating back to 1966, none were labeled top secret and only 15,652, or 6 percent, were labeled secret. The rest carried the lower security classifications of confidential or classified." THOMAS LUCENTE: Give WikiLeaks founder a medal, not jail time | wikileaks, assange, medal - Opinion - Northwest Florida Daily News


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.  Assange just "found" them.
> ...


The problem is both...unauthorized possession of classified information is a violation of Federal law.  

I did look up the definition of espionage.  Looks like it fits Assange.  Any other silly ideas you need shot down?


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> 2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...


Well, that's handy, isn't it?  A splodeydope splatters himself all over downtown Stockholm, and it's a "lone gunman".

But any attacks directed at America are America's fault.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> I find the outrage over Wikileaks hypocritical. It is curious how we so easily defend truth and then when it is uncomfortable run and hide. What happened to all this horsepucky about freedom of the press. How about the "Pentagon papers or deep Throat?" Or are the insiders the only ones allowed to spread information even when it is total BS.
> 
> "Jack Goldsmith has seven thoughts on Wikileaks, and they may surprise you:
> &#8220;I find myself agreeing with those who think Assange is being unduly vilified. &#8230;&#8221;
> ...



This whole thing has lent evidence to something that I always thought and right-wing Americans. They don't give much creedence or thought to evidence. They work off sound bites.

ie: This is all they hear "Wikileaks" "Top secret" "put on website" "anti American" "damage our country" "has breached national security"..

What they don't do is ask simple, pertenant questions:
1) What do the documents ACTUALLY contain?
2) WHO has been harmed by this?
3) Are these documents actually affecting our national security?
4) What have we learned about our politicians and what they are doing on our behalf by reading these documents?

All they hear are the sound bites they are fed by partisan hacks - whether they be politicians or media personalities - and run with it.

It would be funny if its wasnt' so pathetic...


----------



## jillian (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



you can try to make it one of those 'some of my best friends are things, but the reality is we've known for 30 years that the biggest problem of the 21st century was going to be jihadis. are there some bonkers christians? absotively. are their some nutcase jews? yep... like the one who blew away rabin and the one who fired his gun into the tomb of the patriarchs killing the muslims who were worshipping at the mosque they built there. and no, i'm not for 'profliling' as you know specifically because of people like timothy mcveigh. but the reality is that the jihadis will not like us no matter what.

what did spain do to them to warrant their subways being blown up?

you know, i'm all for finding alernative energy sources so we stop giving money to people who think give it to people who want to blow us up.

as to the why? there are a lot of reasons for jihadis. israel is a facile excuse as is our involvement in the mid-east.

do things like iraq make things worse? absolutely. is every situation like abu ghraib a recruiting poster for nutbars? yes. but 9.11 happened BEFORE those things.


----------



## elvis (Dec 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Iraq.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Wow, your own link says the CIA is dedicated to espionage...gonna go and arrest all the folk that work there? Cool.....

So in my scenario, if Coulter and the Times have unauthorised possession of classified information that is in violation of Cuban law, they should be extradicted? Cool...at least you're not a hypocrite...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Depends with regard to the terrorists. Why are they targetting the US in the first place. Answer that question and you might be suprised at the reasons...
> ...



There are one billion Muslims in the world. He was but one. What is one as a percentage of 1 billion....

Some could arguably be America's fault, vast majority not...

The thing that really cracks me up about you jingoistic righties - I know for a FACT that if you were living in some desert - let's say having a wedding - and some third party in a combat jet accidentally dropped a bomb on your wedding party causing 50 deaths (er, sorry, collateral damage), you would be furious, grab your peashooters and try and exact revenge. What makes you think some tribesman in Afghaistan is any different?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> [
> you can try to make it one of those 'some of my best friends are things, but the reality is we've known for 30 years that the biggest problem of the 21st century was going to be jihadis. are there some bonkers christians? absotively. are their some nutcase jews? yep... like the one who blew away rabin and the one who fired his gun into the tomb of the patriarchs killing the muslims who were worshipping at the mosque they built there. and no, i'm not for 'profliling' as you know specifically because of people like timothy mcveigh. but the reality is that the jihadis will not like us no matter what.
> 
> what did spain do to them to warrant their subways being blown up?
> ...



Hold on a sec. Other than causing a lot of damage in their own countries, and trying to make points in others - USS Cole, 9-11, Kenyan embassies - what else have they done in the sense are they being indiscriminate? Are they terrorists? For sure. But why do you think they are doing so? Almost to a person they say it is the western world interfering in their world that is the problem.

<edit> Spain were in Iraq as mentioned by Elvis. They withdrew after the bombing. How many bombings have they had lately?
How about htis - the uS leaves the area and sees what happens. Also, the uS is to stop supporting Israel - after all it's just a facile excuse, right? Take away the 'excuse' and see what happens...


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > I find the outrage over Wikileaks hypocritical. It is curious how we so easily defend truth and then when it is uncomfortable run and hide. What happened to all this horsepucky about freedom of the press. How about the "Pentagon papers or deep Throat?" Or are the insiders the only ones allowed to spread information even when it is total BS.
> ...


See, this is where you're relying on your own spoon-fed sound bites instead of reality.

I signed the same non-disclosure agreement Manning did.  And since he had a TS clearance, he signed it _twice_.  He can't say he was unaware of the consequences of his actions, even though morons will try to excuse what he did because they're happy to see America's interests damaged.

Assange has also broken Federal law by being in possession of classified documents without authorization, despite some internet retard insisting he didn't have them.  

The law doesn't specify a minimum quantity, nor does it specify a minimum classification.  He could have just _one_ document classified Confidential, and he'd still be breaking the law.  Why are you incapable of understanding that?  You sound like Whoopie Goldberg defending Roman Polanski by saying, "It wasn't _rape_-rape."  Stupid, disgusting, and profoundly ignorant.


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


If CIA agents are gathering intelligence overseas without diplomatic cover, they are subject to arrest and prosecution if they're caught.  

But if you think the American Department of Justice is going to round up our own CIA agents, you're an idiot.  


Dr Grump said:


> So in my scenario, if Coulter and the Times have unauthorised possession of classified information that is in violation of Cuban law, they should be extradicted? Cool...at least you're not a hypocrite...


I try not to be a hypocrite.  And do you really think Cuba and the US have an extradition treaty?


----------



## daveman (Dec 12, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I don't.  What makes you think we deliberately target civilians?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> See, this is where you're relying on your own spoon-fed sound bites instead of reality.
> 
> I signed the same non-disclosure agreement Manning did.  And since he had a TS clearance, he signed it _twice_.  He can't say he was unaware of the consequences of his actions, even though morons will try to excuse what he did because they're happy to see America's interests damaged.
> 
> ...



Who was talking about Manning?

It is not Assange's Federal law, it is yours...

Why are you so ignorant that you believe anything your govt tells you?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> If CIA agents are gathering intelligence overseas without diplomatic cover, they are subject to arrest and prosecution if they're caught.
> 
> But if you think the American Department of Justice is going to round up our own CIA agents, you're an idiot.
> 
> I try not to be a hypocrite.  And do you really think Cuba and the US have an extradition treaty?



1) But the CIA carry out espionage at your govt's request, no?
2) I don't expect your govt to round up CIA agents. I expect them to be hypocrites and the likes of you to be in lock-step with them, even though one of the big Neocon whackjob mantra's is "small govt"...
3) Oh, so it's not a moral dilemma with you then? So it's OK for a US citizen to break somebody else's law, but not vice versa?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 12, 2010)

daveman said:


> I don't.  What makes you think we deliberately target civilians?



What makes you think that is even the point?


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 13, 2010)

Curious how so called top secret information can only be leaked when it supports the position of those in power. Consider the lead up to Iraq, the NYT distortions, Powell's UN BS, Cheney's 'we know where they are', etc etc etc.  It proves one thing I have noted forever: media is conservative and corporate sponsored, Assange scared them with the truth.


*"In contrast to the petabytes of data flotsam, half-truths and speculation that drift daily around the Internet, WikiLeaks spews forth unvarnished, sensitive truths."*  Misha Glenny


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > See, this is where you're relying on your own spoon-fed sound bites instead of reality.
> ...


I was.


Dr Grump said:


> It is not Assange's Federal law, it is yours...
> 
> Why are you so ignorant that you believe anything your govt tells you?


My goodness, you're not very bright.  So if someone steals government property in Texas and moves it to Mexico, that means no law has been broken?

Damn, dood.  That's pretty stupid.


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > If CIA agents are gathering intelligence overseas without diplomatic cover, they are subject to arrest and prosecution if they're caught.
> ...


  Anytime you'd like to start dealing with reality, instead of your mindless leftist visions of unicorns and rainbows, that'd be swell.  In the meantime, you're just unthinkingly lashing out at America and supporting anyone and anything that does her harm.


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I don't.  What makes you think we deliberately target civilians?
> ...



Sorry, didn't mean to rain on your "America Sucks" parade.  Meanwhile, the terrorists you support?  They deliberately kill civilians.  But it's not their fault, is it?


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 13, 2010)

Much ado about....

After 12 days of WikiLeaks cables, the world looks on US with new eyes | World news | The Guardian

>


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> My goodness, you're not very bright.  So if someone steals government property in Texas and moves it to Mexico, that means no law has been broken?
> 
> Damn, dood.  That's pretty stupid.



But the point is Assange stole jack, and wasn't even in the US....

....and you call me dumb...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



WTF?? Get back to me when you start making sense....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Which has what to do with my point? Hint: Nothing...carry on...


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > My goodness, you're not very bright.  So if someone steals government property in Texas and moves it to Mexico, that means no law has been broken?
> ...


Yes, and you keep proving it.  

Does stolen property cease to be stolen when it crosses the border?  Is receiving stolen goods not a crime?

You should consider stopping.  You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


That you're incapable of seeing the sense I'm making is no reflection on me.


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Ooops.  Sorry.  I forgot it's Thoughtcrime to suggest that terro -- err, _freedom fighters_ -- are anything but perfect angels.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Cool, so if my Coulter example occurred, she would be guilty of receiving stolen property...at least we have that settled. And you would be Ok with her being arrested and sent to Cuba for trial (that lack of an extradition treaty is irrelevent because this is all about doing what is morally right, right?)


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No you dumb arse. My point is that you would try and exact revenge for your family if they were killed - deliberately or accidentally it makes no difference - by a third party. What makes you think some shepherd in Bumfuck, Afghanistan doesn't feel the same way.

Don't worry, I know this subject is a lot more complicated that your mind can comprehend. I keep remembering that a simple man needs simple solutions. Unfortunately, this type of convo probably makes you feel more inadequate that you already are - but that's your problem. When you debate the big boys you have to bring your A game to the table. And if this is your A game, I'd advise you to slink out now with your tail between your legs so as not to make a fool of yourself even more...

As an aside, is that your pic in your avatar? looks like a serial killer....


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



In order for me to 'see' sense, you have to make sense...


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Good strategy:  Hit bottom, dig.  

I don't give a damn about helping Cuba enforce her laws.  It's telling that you're so concerned about them, though.  My interest is the security of the United States.  

You can now predictably label me a hypocrite, if it sends a tingle down your leg, although you'd be wrong.  I owe no loyalty to Cuba.  I'll leave that to idiot leftists who love repressive dictatorships...as long as they don't have to live under them.


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


You question MY intelligence?  Need I remind you that you're the idiot who said that Assange didn't have any stolen documents in his possession, and besides, he just found them?



It's far too late in the game for you to try to play the "I'm smart and you're STUpid -- neener neener!!" game.  You've already lost.


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Do you need help with the big words?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> [
> Good strategy:  Hit bottom, dig.
> 
> I don't give a damn about helping Cuba enforce her laws.  It's telling that you're so concerned about them, though.  My interest is the security of the United States.
> ...



Well if you were truly worried about the security of the US, you would lobby your congress critter to get your armed forces to up the ante on who gets security clearances...


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I expect that's in the works, although I also expect the Left to start screeching about "profiling".  

Meanwhile, more stringent COMPUSEC measures are being put into place even as we speak.


----------

