Funny you should mention the Klan. Paypal still allows donations to the Klan.



[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 11:00 PM. Reason : Hoorah!]

12/7/2010 10:54:27 PM

Quote :

"Sentence 1: Meaning what? The American public's assessment of the war? As far as I can tell, that assessment is that we're tired of playing and want to go home."

I mean anybody, having accumulated enough relevant, publicly available knowledge

Quote :

"2: We're not accountable to the rest of the world. Uruguay doesn't vote on what we do. I'd like the rest of the world to go along with us, I'll work to try to see that they do, but if it comes down to a decision between what's right and what the rest of the world wants, fuck 'em. That isn't to say that what we're doing is right -- just that the rest of the world does not feature hugely in my calculation of what is and is not legitimate."

You seem quite indignant over a class of situations that rarely occur. We should be concerned about the adverse effects of our behavior on the citizens of other countries because we're human beings and they're human beings. Whether we're under the same national banner or not shouldn't matter. That being said, you see the problem with perpetuating foreign conflict for the benefit of arms dealers, right? This is what reasonable people are upset about; not that we're not bending over backwards to subsidize organic farming in Bolivia.

Quote :

"3) This is probably the case."

If you don't believe this with near certainty then I have to believe you aren't familiar with the relevant evidence. Why not?

Quote :

"4) Maybe, maybe not. I think it's largely irrelevant. Let's say that the Pearl Harbor conspiracy folks are right. Let's say Roosevelt went out of his way to invite the Japanese to bomb us and then lie about it. The result was the destruction of empires of mass murderers. If we had to lie about it to fool the famously stupid -- you say so yourself -- American people, then so be it."

Suppose I bite the bullet and accept your argument. Do you still think it's okay to manipulate the "famously stupid American people" into war solely for the economic benefit of a select few? You really want to sketch the moral equivalence of going to war to destroy empires of mass murderers to going to war because it's profitable for a couple of guys?

Quote :

"I have trouble reconciling this with the previous segment of your post. Here you seem to be saying that our government has violated its right to secrecy and, therefore, no longer has a right to secrets -- even those regarding "defensive capabilities of vehicles or whatever." Time to shit or get off the pot. Either we've forfeited our right to secrecy and it's open season on American military personnel, or some secrecy is acceptable. Or, of course, you could come up with some way to reconcile these points of view that doesn't make you look like an angry hippie who doesn't like the government."

You may have a case there. I just want to see a happy medium position here so that the truth has a greater chance of gaining mass appeal. Do you get that?

Quote :

"Oh, well if he and his people say it, it must be true. Hell, for all I know that's all accurate, but so far all I see is his camp saying they're under fire. The fucking Klan says the same thing, and so as yet I'm unimpressed."

LOL wonder when the documents discussing how to fuck with Assange will come out. Wonder if you'll ignore those too.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 11:05 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2010 10:54:58 PM

Quote :

"I mean anybody, having accumulated enough relevant, publicly available knowledge"

"Relevant" would be the key term here, wouldn't it? We all acknowledge, I hope, that shitty things will happen in the course of a war -- where we seem to disagree is when those shitty things move beyond the realm of the inevitable outcome into the realm of actual causes for the conflict.

Quote :

"You seem quite indignant over a class of situations that rarely occur. We should be concerned about the adverse effects of our behavior on the citizens of other countries because we're human beings and they're human beings."

Agreed on the second count. I am concerned with the effects of our behavior on the citizens of other countries. I don't think you believe it, but I am. I would like to move to -- and I believe it's possible to move to -- a place where common human interests are far more in line than they are. Certainly we disagree about what those interests are, sometimes.

I disagree on the first point. I don't think it's all that rare that what is right is at odds with what the world wants. We can look at Rwanda, where the world sat on its hands. Or we can look at the classic, Godwinian example of the Holocaust. The world is frequently wrong. Perhaps our own country is frequently wrong. And while I don't always agree with my country, and while I am always willing to at least hear arguments to the contrary, I do always think that I am right.

Quote :

"That being said, you see the problem with perpetuating foreign conflict for the benefit of arms dealers, right?"

I see a problem with perpetuating conflict for the benefit of arms dealers, and I'll go one further and see a problem with foreign conflict supporting many types of arms dealers. What I've yet to see here, or in wikileaks, or elsewhere is compelling evidence that our current conflicts are driven by the sales of arms. We seemed to be doing quite well in that department before 2001.

Quote :

"If you don't believe this with near certainty then I have to believe you aren't familiar with the relevant evidence."

This all boils down to definitions of torture. There are legal definitions, which are not perfect (as anyone who has argued with me about the definition of a legal combatant can attest), and then there are moral definitions. I won't get into them here. Assume for purposes of this discussion that I agree that it has happened.

Quote :

"Do you still think it's okay to manipulate the "famously stupid American people" into war solely for the economic benefit of a select few? You really want to sketch the moral equivalence of going to war to destroy empires of mass murderers to going to war because it's profitable for a couple of guys?"

I do not favor wars for the economic benefit of a few. Again, I have yet to see evidence that this goal was the driving force behind these wars, and until I do, it's a red herring. You demonstrate to me tomorrow that a war was conjured up by Northrop Grumman and Armalite, maybe we can talk.

That said, it is conceivable that a man could be bad enough that taking him out could be worth benefiting a couple of slightly-less-bad men.

Quote :

"I just want to see a happy medium position here so that the truth has a greater chance of gaining mass appeal. Do you get that?"

Certainly. I'm partway to meeting you -- I'm at least ambivalent about the release of war crimes in ongoing wars, anyway. I'm certainly in favor of releasing them after the wars are done and the allied troops are home, the innocent ones out of harm's way and the guilty ones still presumably within the grasp of justice.

As with so much it's a matter of scale. Any secret released will improve transparency by X while harming our efforts, legitimate or otherwise, by Y. One has to assign weights to each of those. But what worries me most is not what Assange has released but what he might in the future. It is not inconceivable that our distant ancestors might trace WWIII to that Australian prick, and I wonder what glowing reviews people will have of him them.

Dishonesty is bad, but sometimes a little dishonesty keeps the world from eating itself alive.

Quote :

"LOL wonder when the documents discussing how to fuck with Assange will come out. Wonder if you'll ignore those too."

I'm not ignoring them. I'm waving off the troll, smc, who pretends to take that article as gospel. Look, if I were under this kind of pressure, I'd damn sure be looking for dishonest practices against me, even where there were none. They may turn out to be true, but to accept them as such now is stupid.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 11:23 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2010 11:21:52 PM

Quote :

""Relevant" would be the key term here, wouldn't it? We all acknowledge, I hope, that shitty things will happen in the course of a war -- where we seem to disagree is when those shitty things move beyond the realm of the inevitable outcome into the realm of actual causes for the conflict."

At what point does the convergence of enough incentive produce inevitable outcomes? When mixed with explicit reasoning, as has been revealed? The attitude of some of these diplomats is hilarious. It's clear that the military, government, and companies are colluding to fuck over foreign political situations for their own benefit.

It's the type of shit "moon-bat extremists" like myself have been saying for ever except it's coming out of their mouths and people like you are ignoring it.

Quote :

"Agreed on the second count. I am concerned with the effects of our behavior on the citizens of other countries. I don't think you believe it, but I am. I would like to move to -- and I believe it's possible to move to -- a place where common human interests are far more in line than they are. Certainly we disagree about what those interests are, sometimes."

Don't tell me you're about to move from this into straight-up apologism for our violence industry.

Quote :

"I disagree on the first point. I don't think it's all that rare that what is right is at odds with what the world wants. We can look at Rwanda, where the world sat on its hands. Or we can look at the classic, Godwinian example of the Holocaust. The world is frequently wrong. Perhaps our own country is frequently wrong. And while I don't always agree with my country, and while I am always willing to at least hear arguments to the contrary, I do always think that I am right."

Then you need to think harder. The last sentence there really shook my faith.

Quote :

"I see a problem with perpetuating conflict for the benefit of arms dealers, and I'll go one further and see a problem with foreign conflict supporting many types of arms dealers. What I've yet to see here, or in wikileaks, or elsewhere is compelling evidence that our current conflicts are driven by the sales of arms. We seemed to be doing quite well in that department before 2001."

And for the exact same reasons. Do you think the behavior being exposed here was brand new? It's "business as usual"; even the apologists and loyalists are admitting that now.

"We seemed to be doing quite well in that department before 2001." Ahahahaha yes why I'd say so, let me refer you to planet Earth.

Quote :

"This all boils down to definitions of torture. There are legal definitions, which are not perfect (as anyone who has argued with me about the definition of a legal combatant can attest), and then there are moral definitions. I won't get into them here. Assume for purposes of this discussion that I agree that it has happened."

Apologism for war mongering, war profiteering, and now for torture. You're shaking my faith.

Quote :

"I do not favor wars for the economic benefit of a few."

Then you believe we're all benefiting from this enough to justify it? When you say things like this it forces me to consider both your education and your morality as possible sources; please don't take it as an insult when I accuse you of being clueless. It's actually a vote of confidence that you're not just a bad person.

Quote :

"Again, I have yet to see evidence that this goal was the driving force behind these wars, and until I do, it's a red herring. You demonstrate to me tomorrow that a war was conjured up by Northrop Grumman and Armalite, maybe we can talk. "

Haha so I continue to do the homework for you, is that how this works?

Quote :

"I'm partway to meeting you -- I'm at least ambivalent about the release of war crimes in ongoing wars, anyway. I'm certainly in favor of releasing them after the wars are done and the allied troops are home, the innocent ones out of harm's way and the guilty ones still presumably within the grasp of justice."

This sort of thing blows my mind.

Quote :

" As with so much it's a matter of scale. Any secret released will improve transparency by X while harming our efforts, legitimate or otherwise, by Y. One has to assign weights to each of those. But what worries me most is not what Assange has released but what he might in the future. It is not inconceivable that our distant ancestors might trace WWIII to that Australian prick, and I wonder what glowing reviews people will have of him them. Dishonesty is bad, but sometimes a little dishonesty keeps the world from eating itself alive."

Dismantling our empire could work better than dishonesty, you know. I love how Americans project their greed and imperialism upon every other nation and think that if they're not actively pounding it up as many asses as possible that they'll be instantly dominated. It's such a chicken-shit world-view. I think we can actually interact with other countries in a way that doesn't treat them like animals to herd (or sacrifice when needed).

Quote :

"I'm not ignoring them. I'm waving off the troll, smc, who pretends to take that article as gospel. Look, if I were under this kind of pressure, I'd damn sure be looking for dishonest practices against me, even where there were none. They may turn out to be true, but to accept them as such now is stupid."

You have been wrong about literally everything else. I do not continue to trust the intentions of those in charge when these things continue to come out. When will you stop being so gullible?

12/7/2010 11:34:20 PM

To avoid turning the whole thing into a quote-bomb (as I've been accused of doing), I'll go with responses by group. Response #1:

I'm thinking you don't have a wikileaked piece in which the administration says, "Sure, Armalite, if it'll help you make money we'll gladly start a war!" Point being, you don't have an explicit case, and can't reason from it. And while I'm sure that various entities have colluded to fuck over political situations, this is not always a bad thing. Again, if elites profit from the destruction of a worse entity abroad, I can probably live with that. And it's far from certain, as you suggest, that such a conspiracy was behind any of our current military entanglements. Even if the possibility is unlikely, there's far from a reasonable doubt that the parties that led us to war were any worse than incompetent -- and why we've maintained the conflicts since is a far more complicated question.

#2: Violence industry? No. Violence, at least sometimes? Yeah, I'll do that. My goal is not to enrich the people who make bombs. My goal is a) to have the bombs we need to b) stop bad men from doing terrible things. I don't think you'd be arguing so heartily if we were using munitions against Khartoum now or certain groups in Kigali in '94.

#3: Don't be an ass. Clearly you think that you are right; at least I hope so, or else your vitriol is symptomatic of a mental health disorder. I said I am open to arguments that can convince me that my current positions are not right, and I mean it. My positions have changed in noticeable ways over the time I've spent on this site, and that's got to be some evidence. But until someone provides me with a good damn reason to believe otherwise, yeah, I think I've got a pretty good handle on things. It only upsets you because you disagree with what I support.

#4: I do not have a problem with us making guns. Where we sell them to unsavory parties I have a problem -- unless their opponent is even less savory. I'm not naive. I'll arm the lesser of two devils to take out the greater. The oppressed populations of Sudanese have been no angels but if they asked me for guns tomorrow I'd have them on same-day delivery if I could afford it.

#5: I didn't apologize for torture. I basically said you can't just call a thing torture and have it be so. It is probably impossible to define the term; sooner or later, any discomfort will be put under that umbrella by somebody. I'll freely admit to our practices being disputable at the very least, but to throw the term out as moral certainty implies that you're already more convinced of your own righteousness than I am.

#6: I believe that the human race would ultimately have benefited from the destruction of Saddam Hussein, and could still benefit enough from our invasion of Iraq, to make that action worthwhile. Ditto Afghanistan. We have already fucked those efforts up to a large extent, and the opportunity remains to fuck them up even worse. But yes, I believe that, properly executed from this point on, the species can be better off.

We can create a world in which Iraq is not constantly and bloodily invading its neighbors. We can create an Afghanistan that can keep international terrorist networks from setting up a stable foothold. I don't know that we will.

And spare me the "don't take it as an insult" when talking about my education, you have already made your opinion on that subject abundantly clear. I didn't take extreme offense to the original statement -- it wasn't that far off from the truth -- but that bit just now was nothing short of insulting.

#7: Weak argument. I do what a responsible citizen should do -- I gather news from several sources, I read the shit that is posted on here (believe it or not), even when it is from incredibly inane sources, I follow what a person can. If you've got concrete evidence of arms dealers causing the war, then it's you who is doing a disservice to the country by not releasing the details. You want me to go through all the documents on wikileaks, well, I'm sorry, I can't pull it off.

#8: No idea what you meant. Presumably this will just further blow your mind, leading us down an infinite rabbit hole of your mind being blown and me being confused.

#9: What is our empire, per se? Normally this would include Puerto Rico and Guam.

It's not that we think we have to pound it up as many asses as possible. The list of asses is not all-encompassing. I have no desire to pound it up the ass of most of Europe (though if France keeps kicking out its Roma, I might have to reconsider). Nor do I want to pound it up the ass of Japan, South Korea, Ghana, Australia, or really any part of Latin America (although if Mexico asks I will gladly help it pound its own ass).

Really, how shitty are we? We didn't like the Taliban or the Ba'ath Party. Those guys were all assholes, and you know it. We're not huge fans of al Qaeda -- no shit. And at least for me personally, I don't like any head of a genocidal paramilitary between here and fucking Papua New Guinea. Saudi Arabia? Well, we can probably wait for them to eat themselves, but failing that I say fire up the B-2's. Excuse me for thinking these guys are dicks. Yeah, I want to pound their asses all day long. We might not be better off for it, but the world will be.

#10: Haha, I've been wrong about anything else. It's dark outside at 12:17, I say. Must be broad fucking daylight.

I said I'd accept it if he was proven to be right, and I said I won't accept the fiat of Assange's supporters as truth that he his right. I stand by both of those assertions.

12/8/2010 12:18:41 AM

Quote :

"So if you are ordered to put a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger your response will be "Yes Sir". That is pretty scary right there!"

- adder

Wait..what?

My response would be 'Go to hell'

It's been established you have no idea what the term 'classified' means, you obviously have no idea what a 'lawful order' is.

12/8/2010 12:19:25 AM

Quote :

"It only upsets you because you disagree with what I support."

It upsets me because you choose not to dig deeper. I can tell when you don't do your homework.

At any rate I stopped reading halfway into your apologist rant because I can't stomach any more of it right now. Gotta take a break from how surreal it is. You'll make a good knob-polisher on capital hill, no worries.

12/8/2010 12:26:33 AM

Coming from the man who refuses to substantiate his "deeper" insights with fact rather than polemics.

Ah, well, it's been clear for a while now that a man can't earn his Soap Box bones until McDanger calls him an asshole without saying why.

12/8/2010 12:33:24 AM

Quote :

"#4: I do not have a problem with us making guns. Where we sell them to unsavory parties I have a problem -- unless their opponent is even less savory. I'm not naive. I'll arm the lesser of two devils to take out the greater. The oppressed populations of Sudanese have been no angels but if they asked me for guns tomorrow I'd have them on same-day delivery if I could afford it."

Isn't that a bit shortsighted? Weapons change hands. Supplying arms to certain groups may yield (what you see as) a benefit, but those arms could just as easily be used to do greater harm. Myopia, of course, is at the heart of interventionism. You may believe that you are capable of controlling and understanding the consequences of these foreign interventions, but you're not. No one is. We end up doing more harm than good.

12/8/2010 12:47:23 AM

12/8/2010 1:34:35 AM

Quote :

"You may believe that you are capable of controlling and understanding the consequences of these foreign interventions, but you're not. No one is. We end up doing more harm than good."

A fine position for someone who is willing to say "Fuck the world." None of us are fortune tellers, but a damn sight more of us can tell you when some bullshit is happening in real time. Rwanda was a hellhole in '94. Some intervention probably could have made it less of a hellhole -- but of course, an august personage like yourself could never be troubled to give a dime to seeing that it be so.

"Oh, but I would have given dimes except the government -" shut the fuck up.

Yes, weapons change hands -- and they will continue to do so long after we stop trading in them. You're not retarded. You like guns. What will happen after the US bans firearms? They'll be traded constantly.

Sometimes we will do more harm than good, even with the best foreign policy. However, I believe that a "best foreign policy" is actually possible. Meaning that we might end up with a world where we get to shoot the really bad guys.

12/8/2010 1:42:27 AM

Quote :

"goalielax: as i said in the CC thread: if he does something in another country that's considered rape, he doesn't get a free pass just because it's not that bad here. it'd be like an adult from Italy coming over here and having sex with a 14 year old in California, where the legal age is 18. he's not innocent of statutory rape just because in his country it's OK"

That's not the tune you would be singing if it was one of your military buddies accused of 'rape' in Sweden in the same fashion. Or how about if you or your buddies came to an Arab/Muslim country, slept with women, were caught, and then sentenced to be lashed or stoned to death? What song would you be singing then? Certainly not this one: if he does something in another country that's considered a crime, he doesn't get a free pass just because it's not that bad here.

Quote :

"DaBird: serious question - have any arrests been made from the crime and corruption exposed by either round of leaks? (not people leaking the information, but arrests made from the evidence provided in the leaks)"

How is that even possible? The government does horrible stuff and covers it up. Someone leaks the documents showing the horrible actions and the coverups. So? Such a government is determined not to prosecute itself from the very beginning. You think the USG would prosecute CIA agents for abducting some random brown dude from Macedonia who happened to have the same name as a suspected terrorist, holding him in Afghanistan and torturing him for several months, and then just as easily they picked him up, they dump him by the side of a desolate road in Albania without any food, money, or an apology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

Quote :

"In April 2004, CIA Director George Tenet learned that El-Masri was being wrongfully detained. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice learned of his detention in early May and ordered his release.[7] El-Masri was released on May 28 following a second order from Rice.[7] They flew him out of Afghanistan and released him at night on a desolate road in Albania, without apology, or funds to return home."

Don't you think that if they had any conscience or humanity in them, Tenet or Rice would also have ordered that he be given some kind of compensation? Or at least fucking dropped off at his house or something? They are evil humans.

I pray to God that all humans (incl. the 2 named above) who were involved in his capture, abduction, transport, interrogation, torture, AND RELEASE are either murdered, run over by a bus, or just fall like flies and die. (or brought to justice, but that will never ever happen)

Had I been in charge of this and realized he was the wrong person, I would called an international press conference for his release, apologized profusely, and given him $1,000,000, and perhaps a car and a house as well, all on live TV. Imagine how many friends I would have made and how many people's trust I would have gained that way. But that's not the reason to do it though, the reason is because that would have been the right thing to do... something (any right thing) the USG is incapable of doing (just as much all the other governments, leaders, and terrorist groups it criticizes, condemns, and lords over).

That story is full of barbarism, evil, and terrorism.

Handing out candy to kids on the streets of Afghanistan/Iraq does not change the conclusion:

USG = State Sponsor of Terrorism

12/8/2010 3:30:09 AM

And that's just one story... I bet hundreds, if not thousands, of such cases exist from the past few decades.

Quote :

"Discussion over what to do with El-Masri included secretly transporting him back to Macedonia, without informing German authorities, dumping him, and denying any claims he made. In the end they did inform the German government, without apologizing, and were able to persuade the Germans to remain silent.[8]"

I also pray that all Germans involved in the cover up also die or are killed, even if that includes the Fascist Merkel.

Quote :

"He has also claimed that he was sodomized."

Who knew American terrorists were gay rapists?

Quote :

"On December 6, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union helped El-Masri file suit in the USA against former CIA director George Tenet and the owners of the private jets, leased to the US government, that the CIA used to transport him.[14] El-Masri had to participate via a video link because the American authorities again confused him with al-Qaeda terrorist Khalid al-Masri and denied him entry when his plane landed in the United States. Some press reports attributed the Americans barring him entry due to his name remaining on the watch list. But his lawyer, Manfred Gnjidic, was also barred entry."

Only death would be the fitting end for these incompetent animals.

Quote :

"On May 18, 2006, U.S. Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis, III dismissed a lawsuit El-Masri filed against the CIA and three private companies allegedly involved with his transport, explaining that a public trial would "present a grave risk of injury to national security."[23] (This legal doctrine is known as the state secrets privilege.[24]) Ellis also acknowledged that if Masri's allegations were true then he deserved compensation from the US government."

Fuck this Ellis oppressor also.

Quote :

"In June 2007 the ACLU filed a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 9, 2007, the ACLU petition was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court without comment."

And fuck the Supreme 'Court' too. More like Supreme Oppression.


[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 4:16 AM. Reason : ]

12/8/2010 3:59:23 AM

Quote :

"Myopia, of course, is at the heart of interventionism. You may believe that you are capable of controlling and understanding the consequences of these foreign interventions, but you're not. No one is. We end up doing more harm than good."

Tell that to Japan. Or South Korea. Or the Balkans. Or Kuwait. Or all of Western Europe. Hell, tell the entire developing world that didn't have to suffer under the USSR (perhaps excluding, ironically, Afghanistan).

To say that interventionism cannot produce a positive outcome is just wrong, and that's not really debatable.

12/8/2010 9:22:29 AM

Quote :

"Wait..what? My response would be 'Go to hell' It's been established you have no idea what the term 'classified' means, you obviously have no idea what a 'lawful order' is."

What if you were in a position where it was legal for you to cap yourself? You don't know why you were given that order but because it came from your superior's isn't it for the greater good of AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! Don't ask questions just do as you are told. Fucking pawn.

Quote :

" 2: We're not accountable to the rest of the world. Uruguay doesn't vote on what we do. I'd like the rest of the world to go along with us, I'll work to try to see that they do, but if it comes down to a decision between what's right and what the rest of the world wants, fuck 'em. That isn't to say that what we're doing is right -- just that the rest of the world does not feature hugely in my calculation of what is and is not legitimate."

The problem with this statement is is that a lot of us are afraid that the government of the United States is not in a position to say what is right and what is wrong for other countries. Especially when the government in question is often driven by the financial motives of special interest groups. Our ex-VP is getting indicted right now for bribery. Oh but we are supposed to trust these peoples definition of what is right?? We are also supposed to believe that this type of behavior didn't continue while he was in office? Really?

Also has the governments response to these leaks made them look innocent? They claim concern over national security and refuse to redact the documents to protect national security. When questioned about this they lie and say that Assange never contacted them. Well it was confirmed by an independent source so what now. ASSANGE IS A RAPIST GET EM. The US is not behaving in a manner consistent with their claims.

12/8/2010 9:23:56 AM

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/12/05/Wikileaks

Pretty good opinion piece on Wikileaks, including this gem:

Quote :

"I’m fighting a rising tide of nausea as various flavors of functionary try to whack the WikiLeaks mole, applying the thoughtcrime principle, calling for Assange’s assassination, hounding Amazon and Tableau and EveryDNS and PayPal into hasty action (and I sure wish my profession had shown a little spine). Thought leaders including Sarah Palin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Silvio Berlusconi, and Vladimir Putin tsk-tsk in unison; those closer to the mainstream who are joining the chorus should be very fucking nervous about the company they’re keeping. "

12/8/2010 9:59:11 AM

Quote :

" What if you were in a position where it was legal for you to cap yourself? You don't know why you were given that order but because it came from your superior's isn't it for the greater good of AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! Don't ask questions just do as you are told. Fucking pawn. "

It would never be legal to cap myself. You apparently have no knowledge of anything military.

12/8/2010 10:51:52 AM

^^He makes some good points, but his conclusions are flawed

Quote :

"On the other hand, as a Canadian I really want to know Why the fucking hell are we sending our young people to get killed there? Our senior official on the ground is telling everyone that the team whose side we’re on are corrupt and stole the last election and are “making his blood boil”? The fact that our government has kept this intelligence secret while extending the Canadian mission is making mine boil. Thank you, WikiLeaks."

It wasn't a secret that the election was rigged, and it's not a secret that the mission in Afghanistan has stagnated. If this blogger is outraged because of the leaked cable, then he is too far out-of-the-loop to be taken seriously. This leak is not justified.

Quote :

"Try to put yourselves in Assange’s shoes; the following fact would probably weigh heavily on your mind: You’re being told that releasing this stuff would be harmful by a bunch of people who condoned a war crime and then tried to cover it up. I don’t know what kind of a person Mr. Assange is, and I’m not saying this is simple. But, sitting where he is, I might well have pulled the trigger and released the cables."

So you should categorically do the opposite of what war crime condoners want because they're war crime condoners? That's awful reasoning.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM. Reason : stick nuts]

12/8/2010 10:53:44 AM

Quote :

"It would never be legal to cap myself. You apparently have no knowledge of anything military."

That is why I put it as a hypothetical. You have already stated that if it is legal and you are commanded to do it you will do it. That is pretty blindly subservient to authoritarian figures isn't it?

12/8/2010 10:59:45 AM

Quote :

"That is why I put it as a hypothetical. You have already stated that if it is legal and you are commanded to do it you will do it. That is pretty blindly subservient to authoritarian figures isn't it?"

I don't even know where to begin.

It would NEVER be legal for them to tell me that.
If it was, no one would join the military.

Tell you what though, if some how it was legal for them to tell me to shoot myself, I'd tell them no. Look I'm standing up to hypothetical authoritarian figures!

12/8/2010 11:21:08 AM

http://mastercard.com has been attacked and taken down in retaliation for refusing to process wikileak donations. Online retailers currently cannot accept mastercard as payment.

Visa, paypal outages planned as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------
tooodilllydooodilllydoo

In entirely unrelated news....
A wikileaks cable released today revealed that the US State Department tried to influence the creation of Russian law to favor Visa/Mastercard, rather than their proposed National Payment Card System.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

12/8/2010 11:22:23 AM

Quote :

"As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time."

- Daniel Ellsberg, http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release

12/8/2010 11:30:35 AM

I made this photoshop yesterday. It's a famous photo of Che Guevara after his capture and execution by the CIA and Bolivian government.


Interestingly, the Bolivian government is now hosting the Wikileaks documents on their own web servers.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://wikileaks.vicepresidencia.gob.bo/&act=url

12/8/2010 11:41:38 AM

I see that your finesse and mastery of debating is only surpassed by your photoshop skills.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason : a]

12/8/2010 11:47:54 AM

Why thank you.

12/8/2010 11:49:32 AM

Quote :

"I don't even know where to begin. It would NEVER be legal for them to tell me that. If it was, no one would join the military. Tell you what though, if some how it was legal for them to tell me to shoot myself, I'd tell them no. Look I'm standing up to hypothetical authoritarian figures!"

So you would be willing to deny lawful orders if they were unethical, or evil? Sounds like you just contradicted your original statement. Or is it impossible for "lawful orders" to be unethical or evil because they are american and therefore good?
The people who tortured and dumped El-Masri were just following orders. Sounds like you would fit right in with that crowd.

12/8/2010 11:52:52 AM

Quote :

" So you would be willing to deny lawful orders if they were unethical, or evil? Sounds like you just contradicted your original statement. Or is it impossible for "lawful orders" to be unethical or evil because they are american and therefore good? The people who tortured and dumped El-Masri were just following orders. Sounds like you would fit right in with that crowd."

In your hypothetical world, I'm pretty sure anything is possible.

In reality though, all orders are set within a clear boundary of ethics and laws. Given an order that I thought, even in the very slightest, was unlawful, I would no hesitate to disobey.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM. Reason : a]

12/8/2010 11:56:27 AM

^^
Well obviously lawful orders can only be unethical if they affect bbehe's personal well being.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

12/8/2010 11:57:43 AM

What if the law said that you have to punch yourself in the sack? I bet you feel silly now, for having faith in laws. LOL

12/8/2010 12:06:28 PM

Quote :

"In your hypothetical world, I'm pretty sure anything is possible. In reality though, all orders are set within a clear boundary of ethics and laws. Given an order that I thought, even in the very slightest, was unlawful, I would no hesitate to disobey. "

So you are denying the possibility of a lawful order that is unethical?
Let me use very simple language for you.
In all instances does law=good????

12/8/2010 12:25:24 PM

Quote :

"In reality though, all orders are set within a clear boundary of ethics and laws."

like dumping masri by the side of a remote road without anything?

12/8/2010 12:27:34 PM

Australian Senator outed by cables as US spy

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/us-espionage-trial-endgame-for-julian-assange/story-fn775xjq-1225967923486

----------------------------

Sex, booze and drugs at Saudi parties....so much for Sharia law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-cables-saudi-princes-parties

Quote :

""Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party's well-stocked bar. The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using sadiqi, a locally-made moonshine," the cable said. "It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact 'working girls', not uncommon for such parties.""

-----------------------------

I'm also awaiting any UFO relevations....now THAT would be awesome.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2010 12:58:50 PM

God Bless Wikileaks. Our cause is gaining momentum rapidly.

12/8/2010 1:57:25 PM

^^
Assange stated in an interview that there are documents involving UFO's.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM. Reason : http://io9.com/5708887/what-do-the-wikileaks-cables-say-about-ufos]

12/8/2010 2:04:04 PM

^ Yeah I saw that article, which is what sparked my comment. This stuff is fascinating to me.

12/8/2010 2:14:38 PM

Quote :

"In reality though, all orders are set within a clear boundary of ethics and laws."

12/8/2010 3:14:08 PM

^ I am very curious as to what they have on UFO's also. Additionally I want to know what they have on the banksters. As we speak Operation Payback is underway by hackers to shut down sites such as Visa who blocked donations to wikileaks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/visa-down-wikileaks-suppo_n_794039.html

12/8/2010 4:42:24 PM

Here's what they have on UFOs:

"Attached is a memo how we can actually benefit from crazy fucks that think we have aliens stashed at Area 51."

And I'm someone that wants us to discover alien life in our lifetime.

12/8/2010 5:46:35 PM

As always, the comments under the news stories are often hilarious. This one from an article about Visa and MasterCard:

Quote :

"It just highlights the cyber-terrorism nature of wiki-leaks and their supporters - was anyone really surprised by these antics?"

OK... so... how are you going to say this and just absolutely turn a blind eye to the same type of attacks that happened to wikeleaks a day before? lawl.

12/8/2010 6:45:24 PM

^because one was likely government sponsored and therefore just people following "lawful orders"...

12/8/2010 6:48:17 PM

perhaps

I would also be willing to file that under the "one of 275937237423924 stupid comments that gets posted on news websites every day" category.

12/8/2010 6:50:51 PM

Quote :

"The Lockerbie bomber was freed following ‘thuggish threats’ from Colonel Gaddafi to take ‘harsh and immediate action’ against UK interests in Libya. The dictator threatened to cut Britain ‘off at the knees’ unless Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi was sent home and offered a ‘parade of treats’ to the Scottish government. By releasing the bomber, Scottish leaders sparked fury among the relatives of the 270 killed in 1988 when a Pan Am plane was brought down over Lockerbie. Megrahi was allowed to return home to Libya to a hero’s welcome in August 2009. The shock revelations in leaked diplomatic cables finally torpedo the claims of the UK’s then Labour government that commercial considerations played no role in the release of the man convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity. The U.S. documents, released last night by the WikiLeaks website, reveal Libyan officials ‘convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison… would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied’. Among the ‘specific threats’ were the ‘immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishing or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities’. The papers are hugely embarrassing since they reveal that Gordon Brown’s government was in full agreement that Megrahi should be sent home. Former Justice Secretary Jack Straw has admitted that plans to include Megrahi in the agreement were made in part for commercial reasons."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336684/WIKILEAKS-Lockerbie-bomber-freed-Gaddafi-threat-cut-UK-knees.html

12/8/2010 8:12:47 PM

patriots don't ask questions

12/8/2010 8:21:29 PM

OR DO THEY?.............................

OR DON'T THEY WHILE THEY DO THEY?.......................

OR DO THEY WHILE THEY DON'T THEY?............................................

12/8/2010 8:41:01 PM

Quote :

"OK... so... how are you going to say this and just absolutely turn a blind eye to the same type of attacks that happened to wikeleaks a day before? lawl."

One attack hurts people's livelihood and possibly people's ability to buy things online (although who really only has a mastercard?)

The other hurts some guy's crusade to smear world governments that isn't really that important to 99% of the world.

12/8/2010 9:36:42 PM

Quote :

"The other hurts some guy's crusade to smear world governmentsuncover evil, wrongdoing, and corruption that isn't really that important to 99% of the world."

ftfy, still agree that 99% of the world don't give a shit.

12/8/2010 10:46:19 PM

wikileaks, TSA, facebook is an exercise in something that the world has never known.. but has thought about (especially in the ideas of "God") ... and because of the internet, it is now starting to happen

some info is given voluntarily, some not

but it's started

it's the "everyone knows what everyone is thinking/doing" idea

how pure/good of a person are you? how do you measure it? after we figure out a way to strip everyone, will there be a new way of thinking? will it be even more secretive or less?

are there degrees of privacy?

if it's righteous on one level, why is it not righteous on another?

if you think that it's all good to have a transparent government, why don't you think that it isn't all good to have a transparent self?

why not take that purity all the way to the core to absolution?

sure there are issues of "who controls this data" but what if the answer is always "everyone"?

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM. Reason : +]

12/8/2010 10:48:12 PM

^^^if they had succeeded in shutting down VISA too, then things could have gotten really ugly.

the only people who give a shit about wikileaks getting shut down are gossipy internet nerds and foreign governments.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2010 10:50:00 PM

If they disclosed documents about the UFO cover ups, that would be sweet. I might actually like this guy then

12/8/2010 10:56:14 PM

One obvious lie I picked up on in reading the leaks on the Lockerbie Bomber release is that doctors couldn't say how much longer he had to live. When he was released Scotland claimed his death was imminent. Either way it is sickening he walked. Prostate cancer is not one that usually kills quickly and in fact they usually tell many old men not to bother with treatment because of that.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 10:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2010 10:58:19 PM