Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you go to a Bank and one of the employees intentionally leaves the vault open because they are disgruntled, is it OK for you to steal the money?? That is exactly what happened with Wikileaks. Wikileaks crossed the line and should be prosecuted and shut down.
No, and the thief should be brought to justice.
But should the recipients of his spending of the bank cash also be brought to justice? MM has a point.
And what of the nimrod at the bank who left the safe open for theft to begin with?
Cripes, is this is the best the government can do to 'protect' U.S. secrets?
It's actually more complicated than it appears. Before 9/11 - US depts were very secretive and protective about their information. They didn't share it with anyone - inside the US or further afield. Post 9/11 US departments were more ready to share information between themselves, and with other agencies outside the US. They did that to try and stop future attacks. That, in itself, has its drawbacks... because so many people had access.
In truth, it would not have been all that difficult for one person with the right security clearance to download all that information and pass it along. It could just have been one guy... it may have been more... We certainly need an investigation... And, I suspect one has already started. Sometimes, the Government does stuff without telling everybody.
Because it's in the Constitution. Simple as that.Newspapers printing this information are in receipt of "Stolen Goods". Why should they be allowed to profit from such theft?
It's likely unconstitutional to prevent them from printing such info - but for private citizens to shun those that do is perfectly consistent with our individual right of freedom of association.
The government has no problem with shutting down domains that distribute MP3s, on the pretext that the content is stolen.
Homeland Security seizes domain names - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
Why is publishing stolen content belonging to America acceptable?
I doubt all this information came from one young dumb PFC. I want a full in debt investigation. I want every one of these idiots. And I want every news organization to stop posting anything they got from this site. And if they continue then charge them too.
That's right! We need to shut down Freedom of the Press! Otherwise people might find out we're not perfect!
The government has no problem with shutting down domains that distribute MP3s, on the pretext that the content is stolen.
Homeland Security seizes domain names - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
Why is publishing stolen content belonging to America acceptable?
The government shutting down websites isn't acceptable at all. In either case.
doc,
Is there any point at which you would view a media outlet as crossing the line toward providing "aid and comfort to the enemy" and giving up its right to constitutional protection as The Press.
I doubt all this information came from one young dumb PFC. I want a full in debt investigation. I want every one of these idiots. And I want every news organization to stop posting anything they got from this site. And if they continue then charge them too.
That's right! We need to shut down Freedom of the Press! Otherwise people might find out we're not perfect!
Yep, let's get all hysterical about crap. Cool. It's not about people finding out we're not perfect, you idiot.... It's about protecting and maintaining our national security. But, hey, let's not worry about national security! Who cares if more Americans die because some traitor sold information to someone.
The government has no problem with shutting down domains that distribute MP3s, on the pretext that the content is stolen.
Homeland Security seizes domain names - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
Why is publishing stolen content belonging to America acceptable?
The government shutting down websites isn't acceptable at all. In either case.
If the content is stolen, why not?
And that could.... theoretically.... go for every site that runs information from this source.
I doubt all this information came from one young dumb PFC. I want a full in debt investigation. I want every one of these idiots. And I want every news organization to stop posting anything they got from this site. And if they continue then charge them too.
That's right! We need to shut down Freedom of the Press! Otherwise people might find out we're not perfect!
doc,
Is there any point at which you would view a media outlet as crossing the line toward providing "aid and comfort to the enemy" and giving up its right to constitutional protection as The Press.
I'm not a conservative. Betraying your country is betraying your country.I just peed my panties!
And your last point is spot on...already the Saudis et al are claiming Americans can't be trusted. This dweeb needs to eat shit.
So it's the fault of WikiLeaks that the U.S. government did things that has led them to be considered untrustworthy? No. They shouldn't have done those things in the first place and this wouldn't be a problem.
I don't understand why so many Conservatives who claim that the government is incompetent in every aspect still seem to trust the military implicitly.
I don't support releasing names. But everything else? If we're so worried about our standing in the world, we shouldn't have done those things in the first place. It's likely that most other world governments knew this already (does anyone doubt that our "allies" have spies in our government?).
I doubt all this information came from one young dumb PFC. I want a full in debt investigation. I want every one of these idiots. And I want every news organization to stop posting anything they got from this site. And if they continue then charge them too.
That's right! We need to shut down Freedom of the Press! Otherwise people might find out we're not perfect!
Yes you stupid fuck, when the press is printing classified information then they need to be shut down. Common fucking sense.
I doubt all this information came from one young dumb PFC. I want a full in debt investigation. I want every one of these idiots. And I want every news organization to stop posting anything they got from this site. And if they continue then charge them too.
That's right! We need to shut down Freedom of the Press! Otherwise people might find out we're not perfect!
Times Preens Over Publishing Stolen Cables, But Was Snooty Over Swiped Climate-Gate Email
By: Clay Waters
November 29, 2010 15:42 ET
...While the Times managed to overcome whatever qualms it had against running pieces of the diplomatic correspondence, bloggers like Scott Hinderaker at Powerline remembered the papers quite different reaction to another trove of sensitive and damning emails -- the controversy that came to be known as Climategate.
In November 2009, former Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin snootily informed readers of his nytimes.com blog that he would not be publishing the raw emails: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they wont be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources."
While Revkin provided a link to skeptics, his front-page story on Climate-gate only relayed excerpts from the emails. By contrast, the Times ran raw data from 14 leaked cables in the print version of its massive story on Monday.
Max Boot at Commentary Magazine's website accused the Times of a double standard, and challenged the newspaper to publish its own internal correspondence just as it did that of the government:
I wondered why, if the Times believes that openness is so important to the operations of the U.S. government, that same logic doesnt apply to the newspaper itself. The Times, after all, is still, despite its loss of influence in the Internet age, the leading newspaper in the U.S. and indeed the world. It still shakes governments, shapes opinions, and moves markets, even if it doesnt do so as often or as much as it used to.
I'm not a conservative. Betraying your country is betraying your country.So it's the fault of WikiLeaks that the U.S. government did things that has led them to be considered untrustworthy? No. They shouldn't have done those things in the first place and this wouldn't be a problem.
I don't understand why so many Conservatives who claim that the government is incompetent in every aspect still seem to trust the military implicitly.
I don't support releasing names. But everything else? If we're so worried about our standing in the world, we shouldn't have done those things in the first place. It's likely that most other world governments knew this already (does anyone doubt that our "allies" have spies in our government?).
It really is that simple.
Can you imagine how much trouble that is going to cause between Saudi and Iran? A whole heap of shit is gonna hit the fan because of that. And that will cause a ripple of shit around the world.
These people - everyone who leaked this shit - should be tried for treason and, assuming they're convicted.... given the Death Penalty. Maybe that will teach anyone else who's tempted that we are not gonna sit idly by while idiots destroy our nation from within.
And we hought the world was changing for the worse...the scope of this is immense. We ought to track down this creep Julian Assange...and string his ass up.
Hell in the old days the guy would have died from a massive dose of lead and disappear off the face of the Earth.
Julian Assange is just the spokesman and chairman for WikiLeaks. Without him, the information would still get out there. The website itself is international, as is the organization that updates the site. WikiLeaks, for all legal purposes is a data haven.
It wasn't "unfettered." Contrary to the lies from the government and the lapdog media, there's alot of redacted stuff in these files.you're not alone, Maurader. I wish there was a more formal way to screen these before release, but that would of course destroy the whole idea.
Given this unfettered release or no release at all, I'll certainly take the unfettered release. More transparency = better governance.
Wikileaks actually went through them all pover the months, and DID redact names, etc.
Indeed. "unfettered" was a poor choice of words. More precisely, Wikileaks was the sole jury on what should / should not be released. In a perfect world, I'd prefer more checks on that. However, there's no reasonable way to create those checks without getting government involved and therefore I'd prefer the release as it was instead of no release at all.
