• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Wikileaks blocked?

I'll just say this. The people I know that are associated with this, They are always happy to be the center of attention, and think that it is cool that they are the focus of attention.

For a lot of people it is a big happy fun game, and when they make the news, it is awesome because it shows how cool and cutting edge they are.

Personally, fuck them, they are playing a retarded game, IMHO there is freedom of speech, and there is fucking with the lives of people that you don't understand because you just think you are an uber-hacker douchebag.
 
The simple truth is that every man who makes a difference is an asshole. If you take action, you offend people. If you take action that offends a lot of people, you're a major asshole.

Major assholes include Churchill, Chamberlain, Hitler, Roosevelt, Mao, Stalin, Margaret Thatcher, Obama, and a thousand others. You don't make an omellete without breaking eggs.
 
Remember how the New York Times withheld information about the Bush Administration's use of torture before the 2004 elections? Or how NYT reporter Judith Miller fabricated stories about Iraqi WMDs before the invasion of that country?

The mainstream media and those in power often work hand in hand. The mainstream media do not serve the public interest.

Fortunately there are people and organizations out there who feel otherwise. Daniel Ellsberg was one; Wikileaks another...
 
tzrider said:
Which laws and values have they helped to end?
Click to expand...
"End-running" means getting around through duplicity, though PayPal's actions could definitely be seen as ending those laws and values through (illegal but possibly accepted) precedent.

They are helping to end one of the First Amendment rights (freedom of the press) and one of the Fifth Amendment rights (due process) by willingly applying a somewhat-deniable lever to the U.S. government. Wikileaks has not been charged with any crime, and they do fall under the classification of "press."
 
to expand on this: if the media celebrates you as a hero, if there are T shirts and open movements in support, fundraisers on government-controlled channels and proponents on government funded radio celebrating your accomplishments, If you're above ground at all, you're NOT making a difference-you're just a tool for a different faction helping to maintain the status quo.
When you become a pariah: hated, ridiculed, no longer "trendy", called an idiot by all the talking heads or ignored by media, and disdained by even the most "hip" college girls, THEN you *might* be making a real change in the system. At that point, if you become an actual enemy, you may actually be a real threat to the "system".

Assflange even now enjoys too much celebrity to be an "agent of truth". He's at best, a "useful idiot". Even his attempts at "going underground" were more drama queen antics.

If he survives for any length of time in police protection, it's because he's still not a threat to those who find him useful. Kinda like those Salem witch trials-if he floats, he's guilty. Unfair, unjust? Those are terms of the societies he's tried to undermine. He wanted to play in the Big Leagues, but didn't figure his little league rules no longer applied. A particularly glaring lack of sophistication by someone claiming to have the savvy of what "needed" to be leaked and what did not.

Another thing, the definition of making change isn't just based on assholery. It only means you might be on the right track. It also can mean you're a sociopath with narcisstic personality disorder (oh wait, that's not a "disorder" anymore...)

afm199 said:
The simple truth is that every man who makes a difference is an asshole. If you take action, you offend people. If you take action that offends a lot of people, you're a major asshole.

Major assholes include Churchill, Chamberlain, Hitler, Roosevelt, Mao, Stalin, Margaret Thatcher, Obama, and a thousand others. You don't make an omellete without breaking eggs.
Click to expand...
 
MysterYvil said:
They are helping to end one of the First Amendment rights (freedom of the press) and one of the Fifth Amendment rights (due process) by willingly applying a somewhat-deniable lever to the U.S. government. Wikileaks has not been charged with any crime, and they do fall under the classification of "press."
Click to expand...

Neither WikiLeaks nor Assange are entitled to US Constitutional protection. WikiLeaks is not a US entity and Assange is not a US citizen. They have no First Ammendment rights.

The State Department is investigating Assange on charges of receiving stolen property and espionage, that I know of right now. They are considering other options but haven't indicated what those are yet. Freezing assets is a long used tool by law enforcement to capture suspects. It's not a penalty for a crime as fines or incarceration would be. No due process violations there.

The State Department convinced PayPal that Assange was probably engaged in criminal activity and they agreed to freeze his account, as they would for anyone else being investigated for criminal activities that they are facilitating by providing funds. It's their policy to do what they did and they'd be stupid not to.
 
tzrider said:
Neither WikiLeaks nor Assange are entitled to US Constitutional protection. WikiLeaks is not a US entity and Assange is not a US citizen. They have no First Ammendment rights.

The State Department is investigating Assange on charges of receiving stolen property and espionage, that I know of right now. They are considering other options but haven't indicated what those are yet. Freezing assets is a long used tool by law enforcement to capture suspects. It's not a penalty for a crime as fines or incarceration would be. No due process violations there.

The State Department convinced PayPal that Assange was probably engaged in criminal activity and they agreed to freeze his account, as they would for anyone else being investigated for criminal activities that they are facilitating by providing funds. It's their policy to do what they did and they'd be stupid not to.
Click to expand...
Wait, what?!

So, in your mind, the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens? The values espoused are applicable only to U.S. citizens?

Now I see where our values clash... I believe in the tents espoused by our Constitution, and I expect my government (which represents me as a voter) to cleave to its standards at all times, not just when convenient.
 
MysterYvil said:
Wait, what?!

So, in your mind, the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens? The values espoused are applicable only to U.S. citizens?

Now I see where our values clash... I believe in the tents espoused by our Constitution, and I expect my government (which represents me as a voter) to cleave to its standards at all times, not just when convenient.
Click to expand...

He is not in the US and he isn't an American. Why would the constitution apply to him?

Don't act like you believe the Constitution should protect everyone in the world, because then waging war would be illegal. Can't kill people without due process.
 
MysterYvil said:
Wait, what?!

So, in your mind, the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens? The values espoused are applicable only to U.S. citizens?

Now I see where our values clash... I believe in the tents espoused by our Constitution, and I expect my government (which represents me as a voter) to cleave to its standards at all times, not just when convenient.
Click to expand...

2strokeYardSale said:
:rofl
Click to expand...

Until the US has jurisdiction over the guy we can neither prosecute him under our laws nor extend him constitutional protection. From what I can tell, the specifics of this case will place new tests on existing law.

From the following transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec10/wikileaks2_12-07.html

SUMMARY

The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is just one of the many problems he and his secrets-exposing website now face as the U.S. explores possible prosecution on espionage charges. Gwen Ifill talks to Jeffrey Smith, former CIA general counsel, and Abbe Lowell, who has defended clients on espionage charges.
Click to expand...

GWEN IFILL: Not a slam-dunk. Define, first of all -- assuming that espionage is one approach which the Justice Department is pursuing, define what that means.

JEFFREY SMITH: In this context, as Abbe says, it's never been used, but the plain language of the statute does say that it is a crime for someone who has national defense information without authority to convey it to someone else, knowing that it will do harm to the United States.

Over the years, the courts have added to that, knowing that it will do harm, the requirement that the individual act in bad faith. And my own judgment is that that will be pretty easy to prove here. I do not think that what Assange did, this massive release of information, with no patina of journalism around it, I think it's hard to believe that that will be constitutionally protected activity.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk -- let's just get that off the table, this whole question of whether he is a journalist and whether he is -- what he did was constitutionally protected.

In your opinion?

ABBE LOWELL: Well, here's what the government would say in bringing a case.

The government will say that this is just providing the vehicle of a site in which raw material is dumped out, with no editorial function and no real activity, ergo, it's not really journalism.

And what journalists likely will say, because the line is a very fuzzy one, and it's a dangerous one under the First Amendment, and Assange will say back, is, no, acquiring information by whatever means and disseminating it to the public is the definition of journalism.

It has not been tested. It is ironic that this issue of what is the new media, what is the Internet may be defined and tested under the auspices of a 1917 criminal statute called the Espionage Act.
Click to expand...

Note that Gwen's initial question below asks how liable Assange is under the Espionage laww of 1917:

GWEN IFILL: But I'm curious, one little detail, which is, he's not a U.S. citizen. How liable is he under these laws?

JEFFREY SMITH: Well, there's one case in which an East German citizen was convicted under the statutes.

I don't think -- he undoubtedly would raise the question of extraterritorial application, but I don't think his citizenship makes any difference. It will have had an impact on the United States. And I think the courts won't give him any slack on that issue.

ABBE LOWELL: And he, if he wants to, will raise the defense of whatever he gets out of the First Amendment which would be applicable to him in the United States, even if he wasn't a U.S. citizen. So, it will cut both ways.

But, because he is not in the United States, there's the extra issue of whether he can be extradited. And that's a whole different set of obstacles for the U.S. to get. And, anyway, it's just not that simple, that he's done something and we're going to have him here the day after tomorrow to face charges.
Click to expand...

If the US obtains jurisdiction, it's possible that Assange would have some First Amendment protection, as far as they would go for anyone. There is a growing consensus that the First Amendment isn't going to protect him from criminal activity. Depending upon whether WikiLeaks is shown to be a legitimate journalistic organization, the First Amendment question could become largely moot.
 
Aluisious said:
He is not in the US and he isn't an American. Why would the constitution apply to him?

Don't act like you believe the Constitution should protect everyone in the world, because then waging war would be illegal. Can't kill people without due process.
Click to expand...
Actually, I do believe in it (and we have waged wars that were Constitutionally legal).

Do you believe that it's okay to go to foreign countries and violate the laws and protections you enjoy, simply because the victims aren't U.S. citizens?
 
Last edited:
tzrider said:
Until the US has jurisdiction over the guy we can neither prosecute him under our laws nor extend him constitutional protection. From what I can tell, the specifics of this case will place new tests on existing law.

From the following transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec10/wikileaks2_12-07.html





Note that Gwen's initial question below asks how liable Assange is under the Espionage laww of 1917:



If the US obtains jurisdiction, it's possible that Assange would have some First Amendment protection, as far as they would go for anyone. There is a growing consensus that the First Amendment isn't going to protect him from criminal activity. Depending upon whether WikiLeaks is shown to be a legitimate journalistic organization, the First Amendment question could become largely moot.
Click to expand...
Speaking of laws from 1917, perhaps it's time to revisit them...as we did slavery, the Volstead Act, et cetera. Speaking of which, the agents that stole the Zimmerman Telegram did just fine, right? Again, convenience.

You have perfectly illustrated my point: some folks in our government are willing to subvert the Constitution in any way possibly if it suits their needs.

If that's okay by you, you have my pity.
 
tzrider said:
And if you think the First Amendment gives protection to people who break other laws, you have mine. :dunno
Click to expand...
Accusations are cheap; convictions actually take some doing.

Again, right back to the Bill of Rights; "innocent until proven guilty" and all that other inconvenient stuff...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top