The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Or, does it seem like the long arms of empire plucking a foreign national from abroad and punishing him to set an example? 

Well I don't know. It doesn't seem to me that he's been acting like a "journalistic enterprise" but it's also obvious he's made enemies. These days it's a little different when an entity can take sensitive information and simply dump it all willy-nilly and let the chips fall where they may. It appears he's crossed lines that have put innocent people at risk and that comes with a cost.

National security issues are further complicated by the need to do damage assessment and potentially mitigate whatever damage has been done. Often times certain issues can't even be acknowledged because to do so will do more damage. The US couldn't prosecute the Rosebergs with all of the information they had because to do so would reveal the extent of the information they were getting from Venona decrypts, as an example.

In this case Wikileaks/Assange could very well have revealed apparently innocuous information that in and of itself has no value but combined with other information, possibly from other sources, could make obvious sensitive information that could cost lives. It's happened before and is very easy to do inadvertently and with no malice. 

With the withering amount of flack in the air from both sides of the Wikileaks/Assange issue it's nearly impossible to tell who is right. Assange could have just soldiered up and done what most journalists do and said "See ya in court!" (aside from those in Russia who tend to end up trying to fly from buildings (shhhh! Don't tell Jeff I said that! Jk).

[Bob Ness]

Deleted.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Bob Ness
Mistake post

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Well I don't know. It doesn't seem to me that he's been acting like a "journalistic enterprise" but it's also obvious he's made enemies. These days it's a little different when an entity can take sensitive information and simply dump it all willy-nilly and let the chips fall where they may. It appears he's crossed lines that have put innocent people at risk and that comes with a cost.

National security issues are further complicated by the need to do damage assessment and potentially mitigate whatever damage has been done. Often times certain issues can't even be acknowledged because to do so will do more damage. The US couldn't prosecute the Rosebergs with all of the information they had because to do so would reveal the extent of the information they were getting from Venona decrypts, as an example.

In this case Wikileaks/Assange could very well have revealed apparently innocuous information that in and of itself has no value but combined with other information, possibly from other sources, could make obvious sensitive information that could cost lives. It's happened before and is very easy to do inadvertently and with no malice. 

With the withering amount of flack in the air from both sides of the Wikileaks/Assange issue it's nearly impossible to tell who is right. Assange could have just soldiered up and done what most journalists do and said "See ya in court!" (aside from those in Russia who tend to end up trying to fly from buildings (shhhh! Don't tell Jeff I said that! Jk).

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Bob. 
 

By the nature of journalism, I struggle to see how someone being passed information and then publishing it is a crime, particularly if it has been done in a country that is not the prosecuting one. I know online gets complicated but, I think this sets the precedent to censor anybody and stifle any dissent. It sets the tone that if you speak up about any injustices, you can get prosecuted no matter where you reside on earth. It’s a stark contrast to the Chelsea Manning case. Or the Hilary Clinton violations. 
 

Regarding putting peoples lives at risk and “National Security” protocols; how many lives have they cost, both civilian and military? How many people are getting put in jail for that? 
It’s easy for me to think about WMD’s, Blair & Bush. 
 

Sometimes I think we should all take a step back, pause, and think about what is in front of us.

 

The quip about an increased need for security is interesting and I think very relevant:

“Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

 

John F. Kennedy 

 

[Jake Hammond]

18 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

If Assange said this. He's telling Trump not to concede if he loses a legitimate election, which he did. Trump lost and it wasn't close. Democracies depend on candidates  admitting when they lost.

Jake challenges Matt's opinion, Matt answers appropriately to his conviction. Jake retreats and piggybacks on Ben, and acts if expressing his outrage is some argument within itself. Victory Matt!

My point stands, its just one group of guys making detailed and valid points to a group of people that won't listen anyway. Rinse and repeat. Its a negative, subjective waste of everyones time since nothing said on this thread will have any effect on the people who actually do stuff. I read the OP and it was just anti Trump rhetoric with some points hung together to give it legitimacy. Its just a posh version of twitter for people with too much time. Spend your time researching JFK or go back to reddit. 

 Thats my opinion. 

 N.B I must apologise to the two or three level headed people here who do seem to have a polite and reasoned debate. Although really that belongs on twitter too. 

[W. Niederhut]

Speaking of "polite and reasoned debates," I would welcome them.

What I notice, instead, is a habitual tendency of some forum members to repeatedly change the subject in response to members posting specific rebuttals, while ducking the facts presented about the original subject of the debate.

This happened repeatedly in our debate about the substantial policy differences between the current Democrat and Republican parties, and the fallacy of "false equivalence."

Instead of resolving the questions, the water is perpetually muddied.

As another example, one of the central debates at present has to do with Russia-gate and Julian Assange's alleged role in facilitating Putin's 2016 election interference to put Donald Trump in the White House.

Was Julian Assange facilitating Russian interference in the U.S. election on behalf of Trump-- as determined by the 2020 Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Report?

Yes or no, Jeff?  Ben?  Please answer the question this time.

As evidence, Matt initially posted the odd 2016 Election Night message from Wikileaks to Donald Trump, Jr. advising the Trump campaign not to concede.

Jeff denied that Assange was involved in sending that Election Night message to Donald Trump, Jr.

I, then, posted evidence of additional Wikileaks contacts with the Trump campaign in 2016 (from the Intercept.)

Jeff simply ignored that evidence, and the debate was deflected onto various tangents.

 

[Matt Allison]

Btw, the whole idea that the two political parties "are the same" is not only laughably wrong, but also infers that they should instead be at extreme odds with each other.

As much as some people want the United States to be at war with itself, it's actually much better when its not.

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

You must've been a very charming trick for her.

She married me!

[Kirk Gallaway]

Bob: Assange could have just soldiered up and done what most journalists do and said "See ya in court!"

Exactly, Something Assange's supporters never think of. What did Obama do with Assange's most publicized source. Chelsea Manning?   He pardoned him!

I can't speak to the case against Assange. But the guys been running in fear for years now. Remember he finally overextended his welcome at the Ecuador embassy?  It seems like all of his supporters are projecting the grimmest scenario in jail. People do respect people who fight. For all, we know, If he just fought it directly, he may have not have even served time and I'd say he would  have been a free man easily  by now.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

By the nature of journalism, I struggle to see how someone being passed information and then publishing it is a crime, particularly if it has been done in a country that is not the prosecuting one.

To illustrate the point:

If I were the administrator of this site, I could potentially publish financial data from you that would be available online that you freely gave to this site without reading the terms of agreement (who does?). I could host it and route it through 10 different countries with no treaties, cooperation agreements or capability to enforce regulations and your lawyer or a Federal Attorney (not certain who covers that - SS, DoJ ???) would be stopped at the first uncooperative country. After that, if the country agreed to help, they'd have to convince the next one to share their information. And on and on until they get to the country where I reside that has legal authority over me. But no laws have been broken domestically that I can be charged with and there you go.

That's an over simplification but is essentially how many of these extra legal organizations function without any corresponding oversight. Now your debit card is online and when the complaints finally make it to my doorstep, I claim I'm a journalist and many of the charges revealed in your account corroborate the claim my other source (I'm keeping that secret) gave me that you're planning an assassination! Perfect!

One of the ways to keep from running aground is to do investigations on your plot under the aegis of an actual media banner established for investigating such things. They can and have been sued for substantial sums when they've got it wrong. To one degree or the other they're also obligated professionally to act in accordance with the best public interest. Wikileaks has done a number of remarkable expose's but has also offered itself as a dump site for information from people with grudges.

In some ways they should be held to a much higher legal standard than Fox or the NYT simply because their business model seems to depend on the dissemination of wholesale "leaked" material with no consideration of the punitive effect on innocent people (there are plenty).

[Bob Ness]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

She married me!

Why'd she do that? Better off before hahaha!

[Matt Allison]

1/6 committee isn't messing around. These texts... holy f**k

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/585659-meadows-texts-show-hannity-don-jr-wanted-trump-to-stop-jan-6-riot

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

She married me!

So you paid your wife for sex before you married her and ask who's the whore?  Maybe a little insightful regarding some of your posts.  Though I don't meant to be judgmental of your situation and not trying to insult your wife.   

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

So you paid your wife for sex before you married her and ask who's the whore?  Maybe a little insightful regarding some of your posts.  Though I don't meant to be judgmental of your situation and not trying to insult your wife.   

Best deal of my life. I didn't have to pay her anymore. 

[Benjamin Cole]

47 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Why'd she do that? Better off before hahaha!

Shhhh. I am getting my rewards for free. 

[Jeff Carter]

53 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

To illustrate the point:

If I were the administrator of this site, I could potentially publish financial data from you that would be available online that you freely gave to this site without reading the terms of agreement (who does?). I could host it and route it through 10 different countries with no treaties, cooperation agreements or capability to enforce regulations and your lawyer or a Federal Attorney (not certain who covers that - SS, DoJ ???) would be stopped at the first uncooperative country. After that, if the country agreed to help, they'd have to convince the next one to share their information. And on and on until they get to the country where I reside that has legal authority over me. But no laws have been broken domestically that I can be charged with and there you go.

That's an over simplification but is essentially how many of these extra legal organizations function without any corresponding oversight. Now your debit card is online and when the complaints finally make it to my doorstep, I claim I'm a journalist and many of the charges revealed in your account corroborate the claim my other source (I'm keeping that secret) gave me that you're planning an assassination! Perfect!

One of the ways to keep from running aground is to do investigations on your plot under the aegis of an actual media banner established for investigating such things. They can and have been sued for substantial sums when they've got it wrong. To one degree or the other they're also obligated professionally to act in accordance with the best public interest. Wikileaks has done a number of remarkable expose's but has also offered itself as a dump site for information from people with grudges.

In some ways they should be held to a much higher legal standard than Fox or the NYT simply because their business model seems to depend on the dissemination of wholesale "leaked" material with no consideration of the punitive effect on innocent people (there are plenty).

Bob  - your illustration has nothing at all to do with Wikileaks’ practices. It may be that other organizations have been careless and irresponsible, but Wikileaks always maintained careful vetting of materials submitted. This all was covered during the original extradition hearing, which I would wager you are entirely unfamiliar with despite holding a strong opinion about it.

For example, here is a summary of Day Seven of the Hearing:

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/16/assange-hearing-day-seven-ellsberg-and-goetz-refute-informants-were-harmed-and-that-assange-was-first-to-release-their-names/

The featured witnesses were Daniel Ellsberg and German journalist John Goetz. Consortium News summarizes three important points from these witnesses:

1. It’s not against the law to reveal the names of informants.

2. Assange did not reveal informants names first.

3. Not a single informant is known to have been harmed by the revelation of their names.

Ellsberg’s comments in particular are entirely relevant to your arguments, and in fact refute your arguments.

 

Niederhut - all the answers you seek were contained in my post Saturday afternoon at 4:31 PM. I am not going to respond to you if you can’t or won’t read or comprehend the material you are supposing to respond to. I read the silly Frum piece previously, so make half an effort yourself.