Wiki Leaks

[el_chode]

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"

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

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/

[SaraBananaBear]

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)  where Twitter is being forced into handing over data about people involved in/with WikiLeaks of different sorts to the US Government.

The 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/)

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:

It'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?

[el_chode]

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/

The DOJ is subpoening twitter accounts now

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

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

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.     

[el_chode]

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

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.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

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.

[Tracy 2112]

[Ruckus]

Don't ya think it's premature to go down this road Trace?

[ALady]

Maybe, but I don't think it's unfair to point out dangerous rhetoric when something like this happens.

[el_chode]

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.

[Ruckus]

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....

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

[el_chode]

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.

[Tracy 2112]

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

[ALady]

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. 

[Ruckus]

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

[el_chode]

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.

[ALady]

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.

[Tracy 2112]

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.

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

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.