Wiki Leaks Blows the Lid off Again

[Dos Equis]

He's been a media-whoring opportunist from day one. It's been documented that he uses wikileak funds to live the life of a jetsetting playboy. He only releases leaks when he wants press or needs money to fuel his extravagant lifestyle.

I believe it.

[Emmortal]

wiki may go on but what will be done is setting of precedence in situations like this...you really think he is just going to sit on that info and not release it?

if he was going to why did he release the info he has?

LMAO fact is going off what he has done we have no reason to believe he will restrain himself now...

So, lets just use this same logic of just because he hasn't he might in the future.

So because "John" owns a fire arm, I believe he's likely to commit a crime with it in the future, lets go ahead and lock him up because of what he might do in the future.  

I'll reserve judgment until he actually does so.

Beach: What evidence shows that he paid for the documents?  It's common practice for news outlets to pay their informants btw, so I don't get the justification just because he may or not have paid for said information.  American law is irrelevent to someone who is not an American citizen, unless we can of course extradite, in which case he'll be fucked.

The NYT received the documents and publicly released them so I can't see how that statement could be any more false.  They could have easily sat on the documents and not released anything.  Instead they did exactly the same thing Wikileaks did and released information that, in your own words, threatens national security.

So again, how are they exempt and Assange is not?

[tonymctones]

So, lets just use this same logic of just because he hasn't he might in the future.

So because "John" owns a fire arm, I believe he's likely to commit a crime with it in the future, lets go ahead and lock him up because of what he might do in the future.  

I'll reserve judgment until he actually does so.

LMAO NO SIR

in this instance john has already committed the crime...

he has already proven his propensity for such actions, so yes it is logical to presume that he will commit such actions in the future...

you say youll wait to judge until he does but he already has release sensitive intel many many times...so what makes you think he will not release the other intel?

[Dos Equis]

So, lets just use this same logic of just because he hasn't he might in the future.

So because "John" owns a fire arm, I believe he's likely to commit a crime with it in the future, lets go ahead and lock him up because of what he might do in the future.  

I'll reserve judgment until he actually does so.

Beach: What evidence shows that he paid for the documents?  It's common practice for news outlets to pay their informants btw, so I don't get the justification just because he may or not have paid for said information.  American law is irrelevent to someone who is not an American citizen, unless we can of course extradite, in which case he'll be fucked.

The NYT received the documents and publicly released them so I can't see how that statement could be any more false.  They could have easily sat on the documents and not released anything.  Instead they did exactly the same thing Wikileaks did and released information that, in your own words, threatens national security.

So again, how are they exempt and Assange is not?

I don't have any evidence he paid for the documents, but are why are you asking that question when you're assuming he paid for the information?  

I don't know if American law is irrelevant to this guy or not.  Like I said earlier, I'll wait and see what Holder comes up with.  

Your analysis of the NYT doesn't really make sense.  The information was released by Wikileaks.  After it was released by Wikileaks, every news outlet reported the release.  

If the NYT conspired with someone to steal and release classified info, I'd say nail them.  But that didn't happen.  

[Emmortal]

I don't have any evidence he paid for the documents, but are why are you asking that question when you're assuming he paid for the information?  

I don't know if American law is irrelevant to this guy or not.  Like I said earlier, I'll wait and see what Holder comes up with.  

Your analysis of the NYT doesn't really make sense.  The information was released by Wikileaks.  After it was released by Wikileaks, every news outlet reported the release.  

If the NYT conspired with someone to steal and release classified info, I'd say nail them.  But that didn't happen.  

I wasn't assuming he did pay, just asking why that's relevant, when it's not.

Incorrect.  The NYT received the documents PRIOR to the release, they were given time to go through the documents and reported on them when Wikileaks made the release.  You can't seriously argue that just because Wikileaks was the first to receive the documents that they are the only ones liable.  If these documents are such a threat to national security then the NYT should have never published them and they are as liable and guilty as Assange.

Are you suggesting Wikileaks conspired with someone to steal these documents?

Tomy: what sensitive intel that cost American lives and were a threat to national security did he withold only to release later?

[Emmortal]

LMAO NO SIR

in this instance john has already committed the crime...

he has already proven his propensity for such actions, so yes it is logical to presume that he will commit such actions in the future...

you say youll wait to judge until he does but he already has release sensitive intel many many times...so what makes you think he will not release the other intel?

Again, it falls into the problem of precognition.  Sure, statistically speaking, if an action is previously committed then it's more likely to be committed again in the future.  It's not always the case, however and we can't presume that it WILL happen, just that it's likely. 

I've yet to see any information that he withheld due to security issues and later released.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I haven't seen it.  If you have links to evidence of this then I'd be happy to read up on it.

[tonymctones]

Again, it falls into the problem of precognition.  Sure, statistically speaking, if an action is previously committed then it's more likely to be committed again in the future.  It's not always the case, however and we can't presume that it WILL happen, just that it's likely. 

I've yet to see any information that he withheld due to security issues and later released.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I haven't seen it.  If you have links to evidence of this then I'd be happy to read up on it.

he released 2 times so far that I know of...why wasnt it all released at one time?

LOL youre giving this dousche much more credit than he deserves...he released the 10 us critical points or something the 2nd time around...that seems pretty sensitive that wasnt released the 1st time...

again what makes you think he wont release it? he has already released sensitive intel not only for america but for other countries as well...you think that the intel he has released hasnt had any negative consequences for those involved?

[240 is Back]

i heard tonight that while we frequently charge the snitch who releases the info - we have never actually charged a media group for releasing the info coming from said snitch?

is this true?

He pulled a Newt ejaculated in the face of a woman... he's charged for THAT.  For pete's sake.

[Emmortal]

he released 2 times so far that I know of...why wasnt it all released at one time?

LOL youre giving this dousche much more credit than he deserves...he released the 10 us critical points or something the 2nd time around...that seems pretty sensitive that wasnt released the 1st time...

again what makes you think he wont release it? he has already released sensitive intel not only for america but for other countries as well...you think that the intel he has released hasnt had any negative consequences for those involved?

They are doing multiple releases so that news outlets have time to go through the information instead of just inundating them with a huge chunk of information, that's already been discussed by Wikileaks.  They aren't withholding and then releasing, they are doing a staggered release schedule for the above reason, more releases will come over the coming months.  There are TONS of documents that are being withheld that will "never" be released according to Wikileaks due to their sensitive nature, none of that has come out yet, which is the point I was making.

I'm not giving anyone any credit, just asking questions so I can get your point of view, that's all.  Of course the intel is/has had negative impacts, but would we really be crying about this if it were a massive release of China's cables? Would we be calling for his assassination if that were the case?

[Emmortal]

i heard tonight that while we frequently charge the snitch who releases the info - we have never actually charged a media group for releasing the info coming from said snitch?

is this true?

He pulled a Newt ejaculated in the face of a woman... he's charged for THAT.  For pete's sake.

I've never heard of the government going after an actual media group either, they've certainly threatened but I haven't seen actual ramifications come down.

As far as those charges go, they are pretty laughable at best.  Why he made Interpools "Most Wanted" list for THAT should tell you just how much bullshit is involved in this whole thing, on both sides.

[tonymctones]

They are doing multiple releases so that news outlets have time to go through the information instead of just inundating them with a huge chunk of information, that's already been discussed by Wikileaks.  They aren't withholding and then releasing, they are doing a staggered release schedule for the above reason, more releases will come over the coming months.  There are TONS of documents that are being withheld that will "never" be released according to Wikileaks due to their sensitive nature, none of that has come out yet, which is the point I was making.

I'm not giving anyone any credit, just asking questions so I can get your point of view, that's all.  Of course the intel is/has had negative impacts, but would we really be crying about this if it were a massive release of China's cables? Would we be calling for his assassination if that were the case?

LMAO so you think none of the info that has been released is sensitive?

no we wouldnt b/c it wouldnt involve us, that isnt a suprise...just like china isnt now but you bet your ass they would be if it was about them...

LOL dude believe what you want but the staggard release is nothing more than a way to drag this out and get publicity for this...if he was really only worried about the truth he would have released it privately and not through his website...

[Emmortal]

LMAO so you think none of the info that has been released is sensitive?

no we wouldnt b/c it wouldnt involve us, that isnt a suprise...just like china isnt now but you bet your ass they would be if it was about them...

LOL dude believe what you want but the staggard release is nothing more than a way to drag this out and get publicity for this...if he was really only worried about the truth he would have released it privately and not through his website...

I didn't say I thought that none of the information that's been released isn't sensitive, just asking what information that's been released has cost American lives?  This has yet to be answered.

So because it directly involves us we're supposed to censor it?  Makes no sense.  You are either for freedom of information or against it, there's no gray area.  Who then decides what information should be released to the public?  This is a slippery slope that you don't want to start going down.

What good does releasing the information privately do exactly? Put it back in the hands of those that wish to have it censored?  Again, doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Skip8282]

  You are either for freedom of information or against it, there's no gray area.  Who then decides what information should be released to the public?  This is a slippery slope that you don't want to start going down.

What, lol?  If that's the case, why not post on the internet your real name, your social security number, your date of birth, your credit card numbers, etc.?  Of course, there's a gray area.

As it stands now, the people responsible for handling the information (in government at least), are responsible for determining whether or not it should be released.  They're human and don't always make the right choices.  And, we could certainly use more transparency.  But there is no rigid line of pro or con.  It must be decided on a case by case basis.

[tonymctones]

I didn't say I thought that none of the information that's been released isn't sensitive, just asking what information that's been released has cost American lives?  This has yet to be answered.

So because it directly involves us we're supposed to censor it?  Makes no sense.  You are either for freedom of information or against it, there's no gray area.  Who then decides what information should be released to the public?  This is a slippery slope that you don't want to start going down.

What good does releasing the information privately do exactly? Put it back in the hands of those that wish to have it censored?  Again, doesn't make a lot of sense.

you disagree that it puts not only american lives but the lives of others in jeopardy? really?

LOL the difference is I dont care about china, im not saying im for releasing info on china only that i dont care...let them worry about theirs and we will worry about ours...you think they are for or against this? yet they censor just about everything, media, internet...

What i mean by privately was anonymously...not through his website... for publicity purposes...

[tonymctones]

What, lol?  If that's the case, why not post on the internet your real name, your social security number, your date of birth, your credit card numbers, etc.?  Of course, there's a gray area.

As it stands now, the people responsible for handling the information (in government at least), are responsible for determining whether or not it should be released.  They're human and don't always make the right choices.  And, we could certainly use more transparency.  But there is no rigid line of pro or con.  It must be decided on a case by case basis.

good point...

but emmortal you probably wouldnt do that b/c there are ppl out there that would use that info in a negative way, right?




























hmmm I wonder if there are ppl or groups out there that will use the wikilinks info in an attempt to hurt the US....HMMMMMM I WONDER...

[Emmortal]

you disagree that it puts not only american lives but the lives of others in jeopardy? really?

LOL the difference is I dont care about china, im not saying im for releasing info on china only that i dont care...let them worry about theirs and we will worry about ours...you think they are for or against this? yet they censor just about everything, media, internet...

What i mean by privately was anonymously...not through his website... for publicity purposes...

Again, not what I said, I'm asking what specifically has been released will cost American lives?  Can't really put it more simple than that.  I'm not saying there isn't any information that has been released that couldn't cost lives, I'm asking you to cite it.  If you are going to base your opinions off something, then you should be able to cite the hard evidence you've read to base your opinion.  Off the top of my head, I can name two things that have been released that could potentially cause people their lives, I'm asking you, however.

Me not wanting my personal information released is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  This has gone around and around but I've yet to really see why people want him put in jail or assassinated.  Tony, you point out that if he was really "after the truth" then he should have done it anonymously.  That goes completely against your argument that information released will have a negative impact on peoples lives, so again, that makes no logical sense.

[240 is Back]

what is he charged with?  just the sex crime?  spurting in a girls' face after they messed around, and she wasn't cool with that?

most wanted list for that, huh?  LMAO

[Emmortal]

what is he charged with?  just the sex crime?  spurting in a girls' face after they messed around, and she wasn't cool with that?

most wanted list for that, huh?  LMAO

I've read anything from that to the condom broke during sex so they wanted to track him down for STD testing, to it was consensual sex but when the two girls found out about each other that's when they became upset and filed charges.  It doesn't exactly seem clear what happened at this point, just smells fishy =)

[tonymctones]

Again, not what I said, I'm asking what specifically has been released will cost American lives?  Can't really put it more simple than that.  I'm not saying there isn't any information that has been released that couldn't cost lives, I'm asking you to cite it.  If you are going to base your opinions off something, then you should be able to cite the hard evidence you've read to base your opinion.  Off the top of my head, I can name two things that have been released that could potentially cause people their lives, I'm asking you, however.

Me not wanting my personal information released is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  This has gone around and around but I've yet to really see why people want him put in jail or assassinated.  Tony, you point out that if he was really "after the truth" then he should have done it anonymously.  That goes completely against your argument that information released will have a negative impact on peoples lives, so again, that makes no logical sense.

LOL and ive asked if you disagree that the intel that he has released is putting ppls lives in danger? pretty simple to answer that...how about the 10 sites thingy

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13624139

read that and tell me you think he is not placing the lives of ppl that man those places in danger...

LOL no no no apparently to you its black and white...

My point was that he isnt soley after the truth he is undoubtedly out for personal gain as well...

[Skip8282]

Me not wanting my personal information released is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  This has gone around and around but I've yet to really see why people want him put in jail or assassinated.  Tony, you point out that if he was really "after the truth" then he should have done it anonymously.  That goes completely against your argument that information released will have a negative impact on peoples lives, so again, that makes no logical sense.

It's completely relevant to your absurd claim that you have to be either pro freedom of information or against it.  If we're going off your own logic, you're obviously against it.

As to your other argument, you're asking for proof of casuality and that's difficult, if not impossible, to establish.  Let's just say, hypothetically, that wiki released details about our supply chain and the terrorists used it to attack our troops.  We may never know if they found the weakness through wiki, or just discovered it through happenstance.  So, why not err on the side of caution and simply try to keep the info private?

It's far better to err on the side of caution, then put our troops at risk.  As for killing Assange, that might be going a little far - but the shitbag American who gave him the data?  I've got no problem if somebody capped his ass.

[tonymctones]

just an excerpt for you emmortal

"In the message, marked "secret," Clinton asked U.S. diplomatic posts to help update a list of sites around the world "which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States."

The list was considered so confidential that the contributors were advised to come up with the information on their own: Posts are "not being asked to consult with host governments in respect to this request," Clinton wrote.

seems like the dousche bag is putting the ppl who man those locations in danger, wouldnt you agree?

seems kinda contradictory to your stance doesnt it?

[tonymctones]

It's completely relevant to your absurd claim that you have to be either pro freedom of information or against it.  If we're going off your own logic, you're obviously against it.

As to your other argument, you're asking for proof of casuality and that's difficult, if not impossible, to establish.  Let's just say, hypothetically, that wiki released details about our supply chain and the terrorists used it to attack our troops.  We may never know if they found the weakness through wiki, or just discovered it through happenstance.  So, why not err on the side of caution and simply try to keep the info private?

It's far better to err on the side of caution, then put our troops at risk.  As for killing Assange, that might be going a little far - but the shitbag American who gave him the data?  I've got no problem if somebody capped his ass.

I was going to say i never advocating the killing of this dousche but a severe beating i would be more thank ok with...ive seen this guy in interviews and he seems like an arrogant numb nut

[Emmortal]

LOL and ive asked if you disagree that the intel that he has released is putting ppls lives in danger? pretty simple to answer that...how about the 10 sites thingy

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13624139

read that and tell me you think he is not placing the lives of ppl that man those places in danger...

LOL no no no apparently to you its black and white...

My point was that he isnt soley after the truth he is undoubtedly out for personal gain as well...

Tony: I already answered your question about that, I'm not sure why you even thought I disagreed about it in the first place.  Just because I ask you what specifically endangered lives doesn't mean I think nothing has, I'm just trying to get you to give me some evidence instead of 10 replies of opinion.

Of course he's out for personal gain, what media outlet isn't?  Again, it's irrelevant to the bigger picture.

Skip: That's pretty much the answer I was looking for, unfortunately it took way too long to get to it and focus was put on people getting defensive instead of just answer the damn question.  The guy who released this to Wiki should be the main focus and more importantly, why did 2.5 million civilian and military people have access to exactly the same information this private did?  Why are people targeting their anger on Assange when we should be asking why the government doesn't have the proper security from stopping this in the first place?

Tony: I don't think you've even asked me what my stance is on this issue, you've just assumed I'm opposed to your stance because I've questioned your reasoning.  I already stated I knew of two instances which would have a negative impact and possibly cost lives, so I'm not sure why you are harping on that when it should be a non-issue.

[tonymctones]

LOL then why are you arguing for this retard?

you ask for justification of something your already for?

more for you

"Attached to Clinton's message was a rundown of sites included in the 2008 "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative" list. Some of the sites, such as border crossings, hydroelectric dams and shipping lanes, could hardly be considered secret.

But other locations, such as mines, manufacturers of components used in weapons systems, and vaccine and antivenin sources, probably were not widely known. The Associated Press has decided against publishing their names due to the sensitive nature of the information."

[tonymctones]

I've yet to see any information that he withheld due to security issues and later released.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I haven't seen it.  If you have links to evidence of this then I'd be happy to read up on it.

the 10 site leak was on the 2nd round

now whether it was held back the first time b/c of security reasons, who knows?

does it effect the security of the US and its citizens? of fuking course it does