Don't know how much the Wiki Leaks story is getting in the US, but it's big over here right now. Currently the Wiki Leaks founder, Julian Assange, is being held in custody in London whilst the Swedish government appeal against the granting of bail for Assange yesterday. Assange is fighting extradition to Sweden on two charges of sexual assault. Assange has some celebrity big hitters, as well as respected journalist John Pilger, fighting his corner with the obvious implication being that he is being "fitted up" by the powers that be.
I just wondered if people had made time to explore the Wiki Leaks website and what their views were on it? I haven't explored the site yet myself, but there is definitely a negative portrayal of the site and it's founder in the British press (in my opinion).
What's the truth? Is Wiki Leaks the last bastion of a free press? Does anyone care?
Here's the Wikipedia take on the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
Serious warning:
Do NOT click on any links or really read this thread if you hold any gov't position (at least here in the states).
In fact, you law-types are also cautioned against participating in this discussion as well if you have any security clearance.
With that said, yeah...this is getting a lot of "press" but not. Assange's editorial never ran here unless you read foreign press. Those warnings above? Official statements by Attorneys General offices, various branches of the US Military, and various law school career services departments.
Plus here they're (intentionally?) mixing the person with the activities - if there's no legal recourse, he's still ugly and arrogant, right? That'll make it wrong to do what he does! He's albino!
Sarah Palin has already called for his head for treason (he's not a citizen, someone really needs to put a large tampon in her mouth), Lieberman has already tried to shut down the Internet, and politicians are generally running around frantic because their grip on "security" has tightened so far the sand is finally started to leak out through the cracks.
WITH THAT SAID - I write this procrastinating for an Information Privacy law exam in about 10 hours, and what Assange has done is really jeopardize a lot of information that could otherwise be privileged through state secret doctrines. Agree or not, it potentially undermines some legal abilities. Plus it's not really fair to force the hand of diplomats in areas that aren't really matters of national concern.
Then again, he's a publisher, just with the open hatred towards the west. He's not the leaker, and Bradley Manning, the one who broke the secrecy, is the one who can be and actually is looking down the very long barrel of a very short-tempered gun.
Also, I personally haven't read any of the cables, just the news stories that resulted. I will say that I wish he retained some editorial control since not everything is really worth sharing (didn't we learn from Twitter?).
I did disagree with the publication of the chopper video. I felt it was out of context and deliberately painted soldiers in a bad light, especially since the video was edited, and I'm one to not micromanage soldiers in a warzone via hindsight.
Quote
I just wondered if people had made time to explore the Wiki Leaks website and what their views were on it? I haven't explored the site yet myself, but there is definitely a negative portrayal of the site and it's founder in the British press (in my opinion).
What's the truth? Is Wiki Leaks the last bastion of a free press? Does anyone care?
Here's the Wikipedia take on the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
Americans generally don't care. I mean, it's not like Anna Nicole Smith died or something. As long as we can have warm pizza delivered to our homes, sports on TV, stars dancing on TV and the right to complain about the government, we're all fairly comfortable over here.
Now, if there was a WikiLeaks show! And people were trapped on an island together and had dance contests to win pieces of the wikileaks publications in order to solve some murder and the public could vote, then we'd be interested in Wikileaks and national security. Until then, that's just too much reading
what the fuck is wiki leaks?
QuoteSerious warning:
Do NOT click on any links or really read this thread if you hold any gov't position (at least here in the states).
In fact, you law-types are also cautioned against participating in this discussion as well if you have any security clearance.
With that said, yeah...this is getting a lot of "press" but not. Assange's editorial never ran here unless you read foreign press. Those warnings above? Official statements by Attorneys General offices, various branches of the US Military, and various law school career services departments.
Plus here they're (intentionally?) mixing the person with the activities - if there's no legal recourse, he's still ugly and arrogant, right? That'll make it wrong to do what he does! He's albino!
Sarah Palin has already called for his head for treason (he's not a citizen, someone really needs to put a large tampon in her mouth), Lieberman has already tried to shut down the Internet, and politicians are generally running around frantic because their grip on "security" has tightened so far the sand is finally started to leak out through the cracks.
WITH THAT SAID - I write this procrastinating for an Information Privacy law exam in about 10 hours, and what Assange has done is really jeopardize a lot of information that could otherwise be privileged through state secret doctrines. Agree or not, it potentially undermines some legal abilities. Plus it's not really fair to force the hand of diplomats in areas that aren't really matters of national concern.
Then again, he's a publisher, just with the open hatred towards the west. He's not the leaker, and Bradley Manning, the one who broke the secrecy, is the one who can be and actually is looking down the very long barrel of a very short-tempered gun.
Wow - so you could jeopardise a law/military/government career by reading something that's freely available to everyone outside the US?
This would be the same US government that cited China to the WTO for its censorship of the internet? Hmmmm.
As Paulie says, this is getting a lot of media time in the UK.
Of course, if you're a right-winger, this is all a plot by Obama:
http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/12/03/wikileaks-obamas-war-on-america-target-hillary-clinton/
WARNING: do not click on this link if you value your grasp on reality.
QuoteQuoteSerious warning:
Do NOT click on any links or really read this thread if you hold any gov't position (at least here in the states).
In fact, you law-types are also cautioned against participating in this discussion as well if you have any security clearance.
With that said, yeah...this is getting a lot of "press" but not. Assange's editorial never ran here unless you read foreign press. Those warnings above? Official statements by Attorneys General offices, various branches of the US Military, and various law school career services departments.
Plus here they're (intentionally?) mixing the person with the activities - if there's no legal recourse, he's still ugly and arrogant, right? That'll make it wrong to do what he does! He's albino!
Sarah Palin has already called for his head for treason (he's not a citizen, someone really needs to put a large tampon in her mouth), Lieberman has already tried to shut down the Internet, and politicians are generally running around frantic because their grip on "security" has tightened so far the sand is finally started to leak out through the cracks.
WITH THAT SAID - I write this procrastinating for an Information Privacy law exam in about 10 hours, and what Assange has done is really jeopardize a lot of information that could otherwise be privileged through state secret doctrines. Agree or not, it potentially undermines some legal abilities. Plus it's not really fair to force the hand of diplomats in areas that aren't really matters of national concern.
Then again, he's a publisher, just with the open hatred towards the west. He's not the leaker, and Bradley Manning, the one who broke the secrecy, is the one who can be and actually is looking down the very long barrel of a very short-tempered gun.
Wow - so you could jeopardise a law/military/government career by reading something that's freely available to everyone outside the US?
This would be the same US government that cited China to the WTO for its censorship of the internet? Hmmmm.
As Paulie says, this is getting a lot of media time in the UK.
Of course, if you're a right-winger, this is all a plot by Obama:
http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/12/03/wikileaks-obamas-war-on-america-target-hillary-clinton/
WARNING: do not click on this link if you value your grasp on reality.
Yeah, I don't have the links available, but you can google it and probably hit a flood of stories. The short of it: these docs, despite being published, have not yet been declassified, therefore reading them is without the proper clearance is still illegal. Think of it as if you're a low-level employee at the Pentagon and you come across a folder marked classified that was left on a desk. You still can't read it despite it being in your hands, you know?
There's a sort of cognitive dissonance required to make sense of it all, because I actually totally understand the gov't logic - if you need to verify the trustworthiness of your employees, you need to see that they'd still comport to certain rules regardless of the environment they find themselves in (especially if you want to prevent similar leaks from happening in the future).
The only likely way they'd figure out if you read them is (a) reading them while on the job and on company connections or (b) lie detectors administered to get clearance. It's not like they're tracking your every move online (yet).
My issue with it all is this: transparency is good, but at a certain level it is bad. Some stuff needs to be confidential. It's poor logic to say that in the name of security and the right to be free from deception we must sacrifice the right to security through diplomacy and military tactic.
In other words, we're faced with the issue of where to draw the line as far as matters of national security and laundering deception through those same channels.
QuoteIn other words, we're faced with the issue of where to draw the line as far as matters of national security and laundering deception through those same channels.
It's an interesting conundrum. It's a generalisation, but those who favour "big government" (ie who are happy for the govt to control/monitor many facets of our day-to-day life) are paradoxically most likely to back the leaks. "Small government" right-wingers are more likely to want such information kept secret. So the big/small split is reversed on matters of national security...
I'm undecided: I've worked in a classified position, and there are certainly things that are best kept secret. However, I'm all for whistleblowing where government or official actions are illegal - I'd include state-sponsored/tolerated torture, assasination of foreign nationals, bribery etc among those activities that should be exposed. Leaking the fact that the US ambassador to Moscow thinks Putin is a power-crazed nutjob doesn't really help anybody.
QuoteQuoteIn other words, we're faced with the issue of where to draw the line as far as matters of national security and laundering deception through those same channels.
It's an interesting conundrum. It's a generalisation, but those who favour "big government" (ie who are happy for the govt to control/monitor many facets of our day-to-day life) are paradoxically most likely to back the leaks. "Small government" right-wingers are more likely to want such information kept secret. So the big/small split is reversed on matters of national security...
I'm undecided: I've worked in a classified position, and there are certainly things that are best kept secret. However, I'm all for whistleblowing where government or official actions are illegal - I'd include state-sponsored/tolerated torture, assasination of foreign nationals, bribery etc among those activities that should be exposed. Leaking the fact that the US ambassador to Moscow thinks Putin is a power-crazed nutjob doesn't really help anybody.
Which is why I think that the current political pressure to paint Wikileaks with a broad brush is simply wrong. As a general threshold issue, it's not even Wikileaks that's the problem - they're not "leaking" anything, it's Pfc. Manning that's the issue, or anyone who has access to information that is not trustworthy.
Thanks for the illuminating discussion here guys. I followed this story intently for the 1st couple of days after it broke but now it has grown so many legs I've completely slacked.
Though Assange seems to be peripheral now to the real issues at hand, as a gossip seeking American, have there been any respectable polls done here and across the pond that reveal what percentage of the gen pop believe him to be guilty of his deviant behavior?
I have not actually attempted access any of the cables but have heard of some of the material 2ndhand. Good 'ole John Pilger doing his thang!
I don't watch Dancing With Survivors.
QuoteThanks for the illuminating discussion here guys. I followed this story intently for the 1st couple of days after it broke but now it has grown so many legs I've completely slacked.
Though Assange seems to be peripheral now to the real issues at hand, as a gossip seeking American, have there been any respectable polls done here and across the pond that reveal what percentage of the gen pop believe him to be guilty of his deviant behavior?
I have not actually attempted access any of the cables but have heard of some of the material 2ndhand. Good 'ole John Pilger doing his thang!
I don't watch Dancing With Survivors.
Polls are dumb. I don't trust them to survey properly. I think the majority that I've read have had a vocal minority supporting Assange with a complacent majority buying the whole "they're making your children less safe" argument and demanding blood
A woman on my train yesterday tried to talk about Assange gaining bail with her two friends but they had no idea what she was talking about. When they asked her she said it was something to do with Wikipedia!
I honestly don't think that many people here give a shit. They are more interested in who's dying in Coronation Street (our oldest soap opera), which talentless fuck is winning X Factor, who's getting fired on The Apprentice, or which D-List celebrity is winning I'm A Celebrity get Me Out Of Here!
Personally I reckon Assange is being fitted up. Put it this way, I trust him way more than the global powers whose cage he is rattling!
QuoteA woman on my train yesterday tried to talk about Assange gaining bail with her two friends but they had no idea what she was talking about. When they asked her she said it was something to do with Wikipedia!
I honestly don't think that many people here give a shit. They are more interested in who's dying in Coronation Street (our oldest soap opera), which talentless fuck is winning X Factor, who's getting fired on The Apprentice, or which D-List celebrity is winning I'm A Celebrity get Me Out Of Here!
Personally I reckon Assange is being fitted up. Put it this way, I trust him way more than the global powers whose cage he is rattling!
See he needs to sell his rights to a movie. Then people will care. Do I think the "rape" is real? No. But do I think the women have CIA ties? No. Still, its total pretext
My initial reaction was "the fix was on" or as y'all call it, getting "fitted up." ;D Why would they choose Sweden guys?
I just watched the Apache video. It's tough to watch...really.
I started glancing at some cables. Too many to sort through but what an inside look at day to day diplomacy.
did the wiki dude post bail today for 300k? I can't remember I was half asleep and heard it on the radio. I think?
Assange, in my opinion isn't doing anything "illegal", maybe ethically questionable, but not illegal. It's like somebody giving you a CD, you have this thing that needs to be returned to the government one way or another, I can understand the reason to show everybody rather than nobody.
What is happening on a social level really is incredible. the human level awareness continues to grow exponentially the more wikileaks is in the spotlight. wikileaks is like the napster of secret documents. in 5 years we'll probably have pictures of UFO's and alien bodies.
Yeah, he got bail yesterday. He's electronically tagged, has to report to a police station every day, and has a 10pm curfew. All for getting it on with a couple of Swedish hotties! Think twice guys if you are ever lucky enough to be in that situation!
I looked at the video of the Apache attack too. It's incredible that those who perpetrated that crime are allowed to get away with it, while the guy who released the video is currently in prison. He's in prison for blowing the whistle on something that, at best, was manslaughter, and at worst was murder. Certainly something that should be brought to a criminal trial.
If you feel the need you can try to help the guy here:
http://www.bradleymanning.org/
Manning is the one I don't feel bad for. That's the risk he took in breaking confidentiality, and I don't think that everything he leaked should have been leaked.
As for the apache vid, that's meaningless to me. There's something like 10 minutes of video edited from it, and if I remember it correctly, it wasn't a joyful shooting like Full Metal Jacket. I have a real hard time telling a few guys locked up in a hovering tin can who they can and cannot trust with my captain hindsight vision.
War. War never changes...
The video is meaningless to you? If you have watched it you don't think those who did the shooting should at least stand trial?
Even if you buy the argument that they thought the cameras were machine guns, which I don't incidentally, what about opening fire on people who were lifting dead or wounded people into a van?
The guy or guys who did the shooting were itching to pull the trigger. You can sense the frustration when the guy in control is making them wait. I understand that soldiers are often in a difficult and stressful position when they are at war, but they seemed pretty calm and controlled from what I can see. I just think they should be tried publicly rather than protected by the Army.
QuoteThe video is meaningless to you? If you have watched it you don't think those who did the shooting should at least stand trial?
Even if you buy the argument that they thought the cameras were machine guns, which I don't incidentally, what about opening fire on people who were lifting dead or wounded people into a van?
The guy or guys who did the shooting were itching to pull the trigger. You can sense the frustration when the guy in control is making them wait. I understand that soldiers are often in a difficult and stressful position when they are at war, but they seemed pretty calm and controlled from what I can see. I just think they should be tried publicly rather than protected by the Army.
Well, yeah, they're itching to pull the trigger. They're in a war zone. Tha'ts the thing. Whether or not a presence is needed there is one question, but that's one for the higher ups. I would not want them to stand trial absent a showing a malicious intent, and I don't see it there.
Being protected by the Army is what happens during war. If I'm in a chopper and a van shows up not showing a red crescent, then I'm lighting that fucker up too because the last thing I need is for an RPG to come out of it.
And like I said, that video is edited significantly to boot.
You can interpret the frustration as "lemme kill because killing is fun" or "please let me shoot before they shoot first". These aren't cops in Detroit trying to bust up a drug ring. It's a war zone and I'm willing to give our troops a bit more deference since I'm not the one running the risk of losing a leg/arm/life
They were in a helicopter about 2km from the incident! And if their vision was good enough to see "machine guns" surely they would have seen a rocket launcher sticking out of the van? The van shows up and starts trying to help wounded people. Maybe I'd better watch the unedited version to see where you are coming from.
How far should the Army go in protecting their troops in a war zone? If the two children had jumped out of the van to help would you expect the troops be protected if they had still "lit that fucker up"? How about if there was no van and women and children had come out of houses to help the dying and wounded? Would shooting up women and kids be worthy of "protection"? Bearing in mind an RPG could have been in any one of those buildings around why not just destroy the whole area and ask questions later?
If you join the Army expect that there is a chance you could get killed. It's in the job description. It doesn't give you the right to kill people because they MIGHT be a threat.
My point is that hindsight is a bitch. And while I would never extend the same benefit of the doubt domestically in any relatively secure area (even Detroit), I'm willing to defer to soldier judgment in a war zone. That's not to say I'll condone mass killings and annihilation of whole villages. But it is to say that if I'm in a tin box floating in the sky, and I see a van pull up, and I know that the enemy is known to use elements such as the Red Crescent, hospitals, and schools as cover for illicit operations, I'm going to be jumpy.
They were clearly waiting for orders to shoot. This can be interpreted two ways depending on your point of view - trigger happy as murderers, or "please say shoot before I get lit up"
when I read this article, three words came to mind: Holy. Fucking. Shit.
Assange is going to start an interstellar war!!!
http://furiousfanboys.com/2011/01/is-wikileaks-about-to-unleash-the-ufo-war/ (http://furiousfanboys.com/2011/01/is-wikileaks-about-to-unleash-the-ufo-war/)
Quote from: Paulie_Walnuts on Dec 17, 2010, 06:25 AM
Yeah, he got bail yesterday. He's electronically tagged, has to report to a police station every day, and has a 10pm curfew. All for getting it on with a couple of Swedish hotties! Think twice guys if you are ever lucky enough to be in that situation!
English is not my native language, even so I will try to make myself understood, apologizes for any grammar and/or translation mistakes, I hope you'll get the basis of what I'm trying to say anyways :)
First of all, no matter if you think Assange did what he's accused of or not, I find this to be a very disrespectful approach to rape and/or sexual exploitation. Obviously due process in Sweden is not what it used to be, most recently shown in the Pirate Bay case, which was mishandled in so many ways, it's hard to even begin to describe it. The sad reality is that these days the Swedish government tend to give in to demands from the US very easily, but even with that said "getting it on with a couple of hotties" does not equal rape or sexual exploitation.
When it comes to things American soldiers have done, that they perhaps should not have done, it's not simply a national issue really, I mean even the US signed the Geneva Conventions, did they not, or is that just another of those conventions every other country in the world agree upon and signed except the US and Somalia?
No matter what you think of Wikileaks, it's interesting to ponder how things would have been portrayed had it happened in say... China. But of course, one can only guess.
What I find troublesome is the way the US is handling this, such extraordinary measures and talks about terrorism and what not. Like this subpoena Twitter has received (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/index.html (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/index.html)) where Twitter is being forced into handing over data about people involved in/with WikiLeaks of different sorts to the US Government.
QuoteThe data requested is personal information, such as private messages and IP addresses they have used, and essentially all other data that might be available. This of course raises a lot of concerns – the US government is forcing a US company to give out personal data about citizens of other nations
(Quote from Peter Sunde's blog, more info here: http://blog.brokep.com/2011/01/08/who-controls-your-data/ (http://blog.brokep.com/2011/01/08/who-controls-your-data/))
Like Sunde says in his blog post, one of the big questions of today's world is who the owner of your personal data really is? And like Glenn Greenwald writes in his post:
QuoteIt's worth recalling -- and I hope journalists writing about this story remind themselves -- that all of this extraordinary probing and "criminal" investigating is stemming from WikiLeaks' doing nothing more than publishing classified information showing what the U.S. Government is doing: something investigative journalists, by definition, do all the time.
It's a development that worries me a lot, like Sunde says, maybe we will see people being denied Visa into the US in the future for being a member of a Bradley Manning support group on Facebook. What will happen to freedom of thought, freedom of conscience or ideas, freedom of speech?
I had no idea english was not your native language.
The bottom line is that here in the US we have two big issues:
1) A populace willing to be governed by fear
2) Some misguided belief that everything everywhere else is better or right. I'm not saying it's true or false, I am saying a "grass is greener" mentality is always misguided.
So many people think "Sweden has it right" in this case when I agree - this is an insult to a true sexual assault.
And in the name of fear:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/birgitta-jonsdottir/ (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/birgitta-jonsdottir/)
The DOJ is subpoening twitter accounts now
nice post Sara.
I think the media has a lot to do with how people like Assange are perceived. Fox playing clips of Sarah Palin saying it's "Treason" when it's not doesn't help. Or another example of the media exploiting a perfectly harmless interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/julian-assange-full-interview-12437298 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/julian-assange-full-interview-12437298)
the interview is like 11minutes. I was searching for it just a minute ago and all that would come up is the last 30seconds where he calls the abc dude a "tabloid schmuck" after the interviewer starts asking him about the rape allegations.
Assange even says he'll go into specifics of each event they've posted, they start discussing corruption up as far as the State Department and then abc follows up with a question about him spreading some chicks legs open or something. It's poor journalism.
Whether what he's doing is right, wrong, true, or false, whatever. The United States educational system isn't even in the top 20th in the world. we have one of the worst health care systems in the world and our government is slowly getting pulled by the corporate right. Our people on the "Left" are moderates.
Our country is full of hypersenstive idiots. Today, somebody just blew out the brains of Arizona congresswoman Giffords (a democrat who is working on immigration reform and other stuff involving the mexican border). People are afraid of giving Latinos and other minority immigrants amnesty like no other. It's racism at it's finest. A Country founded by immigrants saying other immigrants aren't allowed to do what our grandparents did less than a 100years ago.
It makes you wonder what would be happening today if Roosevelt would have lived long enough to get the 2nd bill of rights passed that his administration wrote. I'm sorta full of shit though so what can ya do.
The Wars are what fucked our futures up. Giving that much power to somebody as stupid as Bush opened up the flood gates.
Quote from: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Jan 08, 2011, 03:16 PM
nice post Sara.
I think the media has a lot to do with how people like Assange are perceived. Fox playing clips of Sarah Palin saying it's "Treason" when it's not doesn't help. Or another example of the media exploiting a perfectly harmless interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/julian-assange-full-interview-12437298 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/julian-assange-full-interview-12437298)
the interview is like 11minutes. I was searching for it just a minute ago and all that would come up is the last 30seconds where he calls the abc dude a "tabloid schmuck" after the interviewer starts asking him about the rape allegations.
Assange even says he'll go into specifics of each event they've posted, they start discussing corruption up as far as the State Department and then abc follows up with a question about him spreading some chicks legs open or something. It's poor journalism.
Whether what he's doing is right, wrong, true, or false, whatever. The United States educational system isn't even in the top 20th in the world. we have one of the worst health care systems in the world and our government is slowly getting pulled by the corporate right. Our people on the "Left" are moderates.
Our country is full of hypersenstive idiots. Today, somebody just blew out the brains of Arizona congresswoman Giffords (a democrat who is working on immigration reform and other stuff involving the mexican border). People are afraid of giving Latinos and other minority immigrants amnesty like no other. It's racism at it's finest. A Country founded by immigrants saying other immigrants aren't allowed to do what our grandparents did less than a 100years ago.
It makes you wonder what would be happening today if Roosevelt would have lived long enough to get the 2nd bill of rights passed that his administration wrote. I'm sorta full of shit though so what can ya do.
The Wars are what fucked our futures up. Giving that much power to somebody as stupid as Bush opened up the flood gates.
That assassin is batshit insane. Legitimately crazy, neither conservative nor liberal.
Giffords doesn't even seem to play into the partisan craziness, which makes it very unfortunate in a political sense (not to take away from the human tragedy of the situation)
That's not to say the woman isn't remarkable. She apparently survived and is responsive after a bullet went through both sides of her head.
I don't know anything about the chick or the situation really, so was it coincidence that she was there or was she targeted? our country is crazy for sure.
(http://www.toomanymornings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/palin-target-map.jpg)
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Jan 08, 2011, 06:19 PM
(http://www.toomanymornings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/palin-target-map.jpg)
Don't ya think it's premature to go down this road Trace?
Maybe, but I don't think it's unfair to point out dangerous rhetoric when something like this happens.
1) It's unfair to read into it with hindsight
2) He seems very much to not be motivated by Palin at all
I won't say it doesn't toe the line, but there's a Supreme Court case about this that escapes my mind right now where a similar graphic was put on an anti-abortion site and called for action against the doctors involved.
The difference was that (a) it was done during a time when abortion doctors were being picked off with relative frequency, (b) done by a group likely to advocate violance and (c) it gave specific addresses.
I don't care what your politics are, to believe that Sarah Palin is calling for the assassination of someone who actually shares some of her own views is just as extreme as Palin is herself. And equally as absurd.
I don't think anyone would want their political ideology painted in broadstrokes by the act of one person, let alone a person that doesn't really belong to it.
Quote from: ALady on Jan 08, 2011, 07:17 PM
Maybe, but I don't think it's unfair to point out dangerous rhetoric when something like this happens.
Yes but that should have been done earlier and separately. This is just a matter of convenience and we should all be above stuff like this. I don't agree with bullseyes or targets or whatever on anyone but....
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 08, 2011, 07:38 PM
1) It's unfair to read into it with hindsight
2) He seems very much to not be motivated by Palin at all
I won't say it doesn't toe the line, but there's a Supreme Court case about this that escapes my mind right now where a similar graphic was put on an anti-abortion site and called for action against the doctors involved.
The difference was that (a) it was done during a time when abortion doctors were being picked off with relative frequency, (b) done by a group likely to advocate violance and (c) it gave specific addresses.
I don't care what your politics are, to believe that Sarah Palin is calling for the assassination of someone who actually shares some of her own views is just as extreme as Palin is herself. And equally as absurd.
I don't think anyone would want their political ideology painted in broadstrokes by the act of one person, let alone a person that doesn't really belong to it.
Agreed Choder. At this point...WTF?! >:( :'(
Back to football
Man I spelled violence wrong and you had to go and quote me Ruckus, so now I can't edit it and be all like "I did nothing wrong!"
Though I guess by the standards of the shooter, my poor grammar is a sign the brainwave manipulation machine doesn't work on me
Also, I hate having to defend Palin. She's already made political points about this on her Twitter apparently.
Quote from: Ruckus on Jan 08, 2011, 06:43 PM
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Jan 08, 2011, 06:19 PM
(http://www.toomanymornings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/palin-target-map.jpg)
Don't ya think it's premature to go down this road Trace?
Go down what road? When I first saw this in October, I thought to myself that I hope to God someone does not take this literally and I felt it was irresponsible, as did Gabrielle Giffords in the clip below (2:20 mark). I also told my wife it was just a matter of time until someone (probably on the left) gets shot. I'm no genius, it just seemed obvious to me.
Am I implying that Sarah Palin is responsible for today's shooting? No.
Do you believe putting crosshairs on congress districts with a list of people in these districts who need to be "taken out" so we can "take back America" is implying that there needs to be violence? Well, to some it does.
Do you wonder why Palin took down all this on her web site after the shooting today? After people were killed? Ignoring being told over and over again that it's possible someone might actually act on this? I can guarantee you that not one politician from the left or right will use the term "reload and aim" as a strategy for their political rhetoric.
Just think about it.
Again, if Giffords expressed concern 3 months ago about being in Palin's "crosshairs", then she gets shot (along with 17 others), shouldn't we not take all this with more than a grain of salt? I'll agree it could all be a coincidence, but it might not be; I believe human life is too fragile to take that risk.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4#ws)
I'm not pointing fingers at Palin or even saying there's any connection between the graphic and today's events - I doubt there is. I'm just saying that I have no problem with taking her to task for irresponsible rhetoric - it was in poor taste then and it's in poor taste now.
Cool beans guys. Agree to disagree I guess. I agree with you two that the rhetoric/campaign was pure stupidity the likes of which I'd never seen before. As evidence of my political ignorance these days, I was unaware of the "crosshairs" until yesterday. I just felt that no matter how irresponsible it was, it was classic partisan pettiness (that makes me sick to my stomach and why I haven't voted red or blue in a long time) to bring that up yesterday with no apparent correlation whatsoever. Any other day before yesterday would have been fine in my mind.
Regardless, it's just horrifically sad
I just refuse to sanitize our permitted discourse to the level safest for the most insanely retarded
Yes its unfortunate, but to say ultimately claim the reason for this lies in some "right" protected in the first (or second) amendments is missing the point.
If this guy wasn't motivated by Palin or her poster, then there's no harm in it. The poster might not be in good taste, but it makes as much logical sense as wishing ass cancer on President Bush and then 9 months later he gets ass cancer, then saying that it was just wrong to wish ass cancer upon anyone. There's no causal connection and to justify a restriction on a fundamental right based on an illogical connection is just absurd.
No one is saying there's a causal connection and no one is suggesting that speech should be restricted. I'm just saying that it's fair game to call her out.
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 10:54 AM
There's no causal connection and to justify a restriction on a fundamental right based on an illogical connection is just absurd.
I never said Palin was to blame.
I'm not sure what restriction of a fundamental right you are alluding to.
My hope is that the talk of weapons and crosshairs and "Taking people out" and people showing up with rifles at a president's speech to intimidate people, will fall away from the rhetoric of electing a public official.
We're not talking ass cancer, we're talking about something greater. America is the most violent nation on the planet. We love that shit, until it REALLY happens. Do you believe all the other people listed on Palin's map (and their children!) slept peacefully last night? To just go on about your day and think that NOTHING needs to change is nonsense to me.
There is a good reason Palin took down that graphic on her web site. No one made her and she LOVES "gettin' all those liberals pissed at her". But if she were truly an advocate for what she believes, why take it down? All of a sudden she feels differently? Why would that be? Becuase that map is irresponsible, just like Giffords said a while back.
that's a fairly dangerous graphic without a doubt. it's hard to argue that it didn't mess with at least a few hundred crazy peoples heads. There probably isn't a direct connection to any particular party but it really goes to show how close our country is to revolt. one way or the other. people are now crazy enough and pissed enough at our government and have been convinced and told over and over that they have to "take the country back".
to be honest, I'm surprised there hasn't been more violence by the extremists because of the rhetoric that's been used over the last few years.
1) When America becomes as violent as any middle-eastern nation, I'll believe that we're the most violent nation. Or when we start rioting when tuition goes up or unemployment doesn't go down, like England and France respectively.
2) If Palin's poster has nothing to do with it, why is it part of the discussion? The only reason it keeps being brought up is because (a) she's a blowhard who trolls the public consciousness to get attention for herself and (b) people hate her for it so they're just trying to pin anything on her to make the public see the villain they see in private.
And if I'm going to defend her - if she left that poster UP on her site then you'd be just as critical. There's nothing that she could ever do to make anyone happy in the situation, but recognizing that it has caused outrage is probably the most sane thing she's done in a long, long time.
The bottom line is that it shouldn't have taken a mass murder to make the debate calm down. The sudden call for rational debate, especially when it comes from the likes of Keith Olbermann, reminds me of this:
Calmer Than You Are (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucZ4KBlpcuI#)
If there's anything that America IS the most anything nation of the planet, it's we don't make a move until its too late, and then entirely overreact. Both sides are equally as guilty as being over the top and honestly, just downright retarded. There's absolutely no use of trying to say "oh, well this side is the only one that does _______" because I will guarantee it that if you look around you'll find equally stupid and ignorant statements fitting the accusation on both sides of the debate.
The rational, reasonable thing to do is stop pointing fingers, stop trying to put the blame everywhere on the other side, and just look at it like it is:
1) An (attempted) assassination
2) On a moderate politician from a conservative district
3) by a crazed lunatic
4) who didn't act on behalf of either party
5) and didn't act in response to anything besides his own delusions
My only fear is that every force is met with an equal and opposing force. And in this case, it's going to be calls to clamp down on expression which to me is the most dangerous thing of all. Because when you strip the Palin Poster down to its basics, you're basically saying that any sort of "target" symbolism is a call for assassination.
Though I will agree with you Tracy that the discourse needs to change, it's just not Palin's poster. It's on both sides of the media - on Fox, on MSNBC, on CNN. And I'll also even go ahead and agree that the biggest/loudest culprits are on the right - Palin, Beck, Mann Coulter.
I'm just a free expression hawk, and I smell danger, which makes me antsy.
She took the poster down because "she recognised it caused outrage"?
BULLSHIT - she took it down because if she left it up it would cost her votes.
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 03:33 PM
I'm just a free expression hawk, and I smell danger, which makes me antsy.
1st > I appreciate your heartfelt and thorough posts here.
There is no danager to free expression, there's just an opportunity for people to use common sense and not use violence as a means to an end. My God, the republicans have been yelling and screaming about us becomming a communist-facist-socialist- muslim-dictatorship since Obama took office and guess what >
It ain't gonna happen. And no one is taking our fuking guns, either. What will happen is the rhetoric will calm down, which is my overall point and my wish for a couple of years now; I just didn't think I was right when I told my wife that some democrat is going to get shot.
You're reading a whole lot into my posts that I didn't say i.e. I also don't like Keith Olbermann and I
fully agree that he is down in the gutter with FOX news and both sides are to blame. Don't lump me in with the Left; I am pro gun.
Palin's map was irresponsible. And it was used as a fear and intimidation tactic. I've seen rednecks use similiar tactics here in the South my whole life. Instead of "reloading" I hope she thinks. Time for us to grow up a bit.
RE: Pauly - There's a difference? She's a politician, no matter how much of a "hockey mom" or "reality star" she wants to pretend to be. Upsetting people and causing outrage will cost her votes. She's already spinning the situation into some political lesson about how this shows how unhappy people are with the direction of the country or some shit.
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Jan 09, 2011, 04:09 PM
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 03:33 PM
I'm just a free expression hawk, and I smell danger, which makes me antsy.
1st > I appreciate your heartfelt and thorough posts here.
There is no danager to free expression, there's just an opportunity for people to use common sense and not use violence as a means to an end. My God, the republicans have been yelling and screaming about us becomming a communist-facist-socialist- muslim-dictatorship since Obama took office and guess what > It ain't gonna happen. And no one is taking our fuking guns, either. What will happen is the rhetoric will calm down, which is my overall point and my wish for a couple of years now; I just didn't think I was right when I told my wife that some democrat is going to get shot.
You're reading a whole lot into my posts that I didn't say i.e. I also don't like Keith Olbermann and I fully agree that he is down in the gutter with FOX news and both sides are to blame. Don't lump me in with the Left; I am pro gun.
Palin's map was irresponsible. And it was used as a fear and intimidation tactic. I've seen rednecks use similiar tactics here in the South my whole life. Instead of "reloading" I hope she thinks. Time for us to grow up a bit.
Fair enough, I read into it because Keith recently came out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/) with the same argument that we "need to stop the rhetoric" and I've watched the debate-at-large blow up with the "left/anti-Palin" side claiming it was Tea Party before the bodies even hit the ground (and, to a lesser extent, the right claiming it was some pro-Mexico immigration drug cartel, but I don't read their stuff as often as I read stuff from the left)
I still think there's a huge threat to free expression here. It'll be an overreaction exactly because of Palin's map, especially since Giffords is on the record criticizing the tactic, and it's just misdirection. Misdirection is the rhetoric, and misdirection will continue to be the rhetoric. There will be calls to crackdown on YouTube and, like Wikileaks, there'll be a claim that if we don't take control, terrorism will spread. There'll be a chilling effect on symbolic speech specifically.
Interestingly enough though, I've seen relatively little on the gun debate in the media. I figured with Arizona's lax CCW regulation and general premise that everyone has a gun along with the recent Court decisions that it'd be a hotter topic.
The best we can hope for is that the "change in rhetoric" won't galvanize her and instead make it so there is no place for her style of debate come 2012.
Olberman is a blowhard and I will not watch the FOX/MSNBC debate about this. I'd rather have a root canal.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php)
it's a horrible approach to rhetoric. you're right though chode and made a good point about freedom of expression. that is curious to think about. people should be allowed to say what they want but where's the line when it comes to dangerous suggestive threatening shit? it's all fucking crazy. hopefully the violence doesn't get worse and people chill the fuck out.
Quote from: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Jan 09, 2011, 07:27 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php)
it's a horrible approach to rhetoric. you're right though chode and made a good point about freedom of expression. that is curious to think about. people should be allowed to say what they want but where's the line when it comes to dangerous suggestive threatening shit? it's all fucking crazy. hopefully the violence doesn't get worse and people chill the fuck out.
I'll tell you the line and where I'll change my argument: as soon as they show this kid was directly influenced by the map itself and took it as a call to arms - or - as soon as someone else on that list suffers physical harm.
Here's an excerpt (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Cybercrime/planned-parenthood.html) from the first case that comes to mind (I was wrong before saying it was Supreme Court - it's 9th Circuit). I think you'll see the parallels easy enough.
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 08:12 PM
Quote from: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Jan 09, 2011, 07:27 PM
it's a horrible approach to rhetoric. you're right though chode and made a good point about freedom of expression. that is curious to think about. people should be allowed to say what they want but where's the line when it comes to dangerous suggestive threatening shit? it's all fucking crazy. hopefully the violence doesn't get worse and people chill the fuck out.
I'll tell you the line and where I'll change my argument: as soon as they show this kid was directly influenced by the map itself and took it as a call to arms - or - as soon as someone else on that list suffers physical harm.
Chode, you have the convenience of not being on that list. Legalistic speech is great, but at some point empathy for those in the crosshairs should enter the picture.
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Jan 09, 2011, 09:04 PM
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 08:12 PM
Quote from: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Jan 09, 2011, 07:27 PM
it's a horrible approach to rhetoric. you're right though chode and made a good point about freedom of expression. that is curious to think about. people should be allowed to say what they want but where's the line when it comes to dangerous suggestive threatening shit? it's all fucking crazy. hopefully the violence doesn't get worse and people chill the fuck out.
I'll tell you the line and where I'll change my argument: as soon as they show this kid was directly influenced by the map itself and took it as a call to arms - or - as soon as someone else on that list suffers physical harm.
Chode, you have the convenience of not being on that list. Legalistic speech is great, but at some point empathy for those in the crosshairs should enter the picture.
I've been on the flipside where someone who was highly sensitive to crosshairs put themselves underneath them, and I suffered some very real and long-lasting consequences. Empathy is easily manipulated.
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 10:10 PM
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Jan 09, 2011, 09:04 PM
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 08:12 PM
Quote from: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Jan 09, 2011, 07:27 PM
it's a horrible approach to rhetoric. you're right though chode and made a good point about freedom of expression. that is curious to think about. people should be allowed to say what they want but where's the line when it comes to dangerous suggestive threatening shit? it's all fucking crazy. hopefully the violence doesn't get worse and people chill the fuck out.
I'll tell you the line and where I'll change my argument: as soon as they show this kid was directly influenced by the map itself and took it as a call to arms - or - as soon as someone else on that list suffers physical harm.
Chode, you have the convenience of not being on that list. Legalistic speech is great, but at some point empathy for those in the crosshairs should enter the picture.
I've been on the flipside where someone who was highly sensitive to crosshairs put themselves underneath them, and I suffered some very real and long-lasting consequences. Empathy is easily manipulated.
yeah, well, anyway
Here's a Slate article saying what I've been getting at
(http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/pagenum/all/#p2)
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 11:56 PM
Here's a Slate article saying what I've been getting at
(http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/pagenum/all/#p2)
Jack Shafer has been manipulated.
( I didn't get past the title "The awesome stupidity..." Really? I am supposed to read an article that is telling me I am stupid? That seems like a constructive angle; actually sounds a bit like Olberman.)
I'm sort of done with this
Quote from: Tracy 2112 on Jan 10, 2011, 12:02 AM
Quote from: el_chode on Jan 09, 2011, 11:56 PM
Here's a Slate article saying what I've been getting at
(http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/pagenum/all/#p2)
Jack Shafer has been manipulated.
( I didn't get past the title "The awesome stupidity..." Really? I am supposed to read an article that is telling me I am stupid? That seems like a constructive angle; actually sounds a bit like Olberman.)
I'm sort of done with this
I didn't even read the byline. Saw the link as "In Defense of..." and that was that. He's attacking the argument, not the people.
Can't stop watching this
RAP NEWS 5: News World Order - the war on journalism (ft. Julian Assange) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXbCwq4ewBU#ws)
Amazing stuff!
"Life's good - shut up!"
;D