"Assassination" v/s "execution". Same difference. How many bullets, at most. They want to sacrifice a hero for politics.
Also, lol at the russian maffia, it came somewhat unexpected to me after all the "lol Russia is so Eighties" espionage in the media.
So, what is Wikileaks moving on next? (after they're done with the bankers, maybe) FIFA corruption? BP? FOX Networks?
edited 2nd Dec '10 8:54:38 AM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?So, how many people are calling for consequences for the illegal things that government officials have done, which we only know of thanks to Wikileaks?
Oh right, they're highly-placed government officials, so this is just a mild embarrassment for them. For the other guy, though, it's a death sentence. Whee.
Edit: After some thought... shouldn't this be the LAST thing they'd want to do, anyway, pragmatically speaking? Seems like it would make a martyr of a non-violent target. If I were them, and had no morals whatsoever, I'd strictly work on discrediting him by tarnishing his reputation.
edited 2nd Dec '10 10:33:52 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Just out of curiosity, Barkey, how would you consider the theoretical scenario of someone violating Top Secret clearance security strictly for revealing illegal actions taken by government officials? Does loyalty to one's government trump oversight and external law for you, or would that be a potentially excusable circumstance, depending on the consequences?
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Barkey alluded to it - an illegal order. You get info that something seriously wrong is going down, somethign that undermines the oath that you took to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic, then I think you could reasonably argue the case that you were defending the higher authority by disobeying the lower one.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.That's an amusingly vague answer for someone who appears to have a mostly well-defined belief set. ;) However, I consider the fact that you bring up circumstantial factors in even a vague theoretical sense very reassuring. People in the military with overly black and white views of reality tend to make me exceedingly nervous.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.If, say, it was something like 9/11 being an inside job, then I would leak it in a heartbeat.
If it was adultery committed by a politician, or the truth about certain military fiascos, I would just leave it. To betray my security clearance would take something completely insidious that involved a massive loss of life as a result of a purposefully malicious scheme by people in government. Some things that might be considered immoral or corrupt aren't worth it to me.
Although I mostly agree with Barkley on the "things not important enough" issue, then it comes a problem of transparency. If a person gets access to all the secrets and then decides to release only some of them based on a non-accorded and unilateral (from the perspective of those who receive the files) criteria, then organizations such as WL can not trust the release to be authentic, transparent, nor another important set of things. Since one of the things that WL pursues is precisely transparency, either scenario of receiving only part or the full docments put them in the position of allowing the less of two evils. And given the nature of the (primary) evildoers, they prefer this evil better than the other one. Considering that the even worse alternative is that we never find out about this information at all...
On another news, got my hands on yesterday's cablegates dump, and I'm pretty much unhappy. At this rate, we'd be able to access all the documents around 2015! And also lol at the NASA announcement that was to suppossedly revolutionize the world and distract all the media in the world from the WL releases. So bacteria can assist their organics with arsenic. So what? It was expected to be discovered at some point.
↑Would yo consider "the greater good" "let's invade the country because people have enough fuel for their stoves but not their SU Vs"?
edited 2nd Dec '10 7:26:38 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?So, caught got watching the news. Apparently, the over-dramatic network informs me, Assange released some kind of file for download. It's encrypted so well that governments can't break it!!!!! and probably has additional embarrassing information in it. The idea being that Assange releases what I assume is a 4096-bit-or-so RSA private key if he gets arrested, kill-death switch, etc.
Any truth to this shit? Seems kinda Hollywood.
edited 2nd Dec '10 7:46:31 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.^^ I've heard rumors of that 'dead man's switch' as well on forums.
EDIT: anyone going through the list of stuff? I'm doing it now. A lot of this is like I'm reading a foreign policy magazine or website - e.g. the foreign policy of Turkey, the people in France's Banlieues fucking shit up Rodney King-style ('the day the niggaz took over xD). I'm looking for seccrit shit man, where is it xD
edited 2nd Dec '10 7:57:13 PM by BalloonFleet
WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!Getting death threats from democratic governments felt very hollywood, I don't see why we needed to resort to it. The documents he is releasing are hardly even a big deal. Most of it is just confirmation of American views we already knew or were an open secret.
I suppose this is the new age of journalism. Crazy encrypted networks transferring around confidential info and forcing government transparency where they don't want it.

What is the difference, sir -_-
They're still....well doing this to a foreign national. Whether they're joking (e.g. the canadian guy) or not, the american politicos seem serious.
also brb, downloading those documents
WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!