Same thing that convicted Steve Rosen

Post #336,807 by beepster 12/6/10 6:15:11 PM Reply	Same thing that convicted Steve Rosen save that he is trying to hide behind the presumption that he did nothing to "conspire" to obtain the information....saying instead that he is a "journalist" protecting sources. Fun for the lawyers to debate...but a chargeable offense under the Espionage act. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #336,816 by folkert 12/6/10 7:11:08 PM Reply	So, we have officially declared war then? Not just an engagement as they are being billed... Hmmm.
Post #336,818 by beepster 12/6/10 7:37:01 PM Reply	You should read it... cause we don't really have to be... http://www.law.corne...0794----000-.html a) doesn't require war. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #336,840 by folkert 12/7/10 3:35:54 AM Reply	But it DOES require intent.
Post #336,916 by folkert 12/8/10 8:28:41 AM Reply	Can you tell me his intent? No you can't. Can anyone of consequence offer real credible proof, other than conjecture, rumors or accusations? If they (Joe Liebermann and apparently many others) could have, they would have charged him on it already and that would be a given good reason to be on Interpol's List rather than that trumped up, dashed/closed, re-opened, waffled witness/victim, rape charges. Not that I don't find it appalling the Rape Charges... but to be on the Interpol list? WTF, soon enough high speed, reckless speeding on the Interstate will get you there? (remember that is depraved indifference to life)
Post #336,923 by beepster 12/8/10 11:08:38 AM Reply	Wait, let me weep. Did he think this path would have no consequence? His intent was to expose secrets. He was pretty open about it. The organization's stated goal is to ensure that whistleblowers and journalists are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified documents...(to him/his org) So his intent is to facilitate the communication of classified information. His shield is claiming to be "the press". Its a damned good shield. No I don't like the path they are taking to get him. Doesn't make me like what he is doing...nor make him some kind of "folk hero" in my book. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #336,926 by drook 12/8/10 11:25:23 AM Reply	Is it OK that the NYT has reprinted what he released? You standard tactic here would be to say that they are also wrong, but that doesn't excuse Assange. Except that you haven't already said that the NYT was wrong. Which can't help but suggest that you think they are less wrong than he is. -- Drew
Post #336,930 by beepster 12/8/10 11:50:53 AM Reply	Where did they get it? anonymous source, right? Wonder who that was. And my dislike of what he is doing has very little to do with his "journalistic" intentions...as some of that has indeed been beneficial...it is more related to him becoming something akin to Elliot Carver. This prosecution (or persecution) may indeed short circuit most of my issues with him, however..as the mirrors increase...lessing any one person's (or very small groups) control over its sourcing and/or use. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #336,934 by drook 12/8/10 12:52:09 PM Reply	Huh? Why does it matter where the NYT got them? And the Elliot Carver reference ... A Bond villain? That's really the best you can come up with for why Assange is wrong? It's not even a good comparison, as Carver is already a play on real media moguls, who are currently deeply involved in the Assange coverage. -- Drew
Post #336,950 by beepster 12/8/10 6:21:06 PM Reply	Re: Huh? Because they are printing material only sourced from wikileaks. They are secondary to the problem. The "hypocrisy" of their treatment may be a problem..but they wouldn't have the material had it not been provided to them by Assange/wikileaks. Brilliant on his part to share it with his choice of "leading" established media. I'm not judging right/wrong...I'm judging "do i like/not like" what he is doing. In that judgement, I see him emulating Carver...singularly deciding what to/not to cover, thus manipulating...and also through this becoming that center point of information flow. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #336,955 by folkert 12/8/10 8:05:28 PM Reply	The original sin... was not perpetrated by JA/wikileaks.
Post #336,977 by beepster 12/9/10 1:46:19 AM Reply	So.. I convinced you to kill someone...and I have no part in the crime. I like that. No such thing as accessory or conspiracy. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #336,980 by crazy 12/9/10 3:57:25 AM Reply	"Convinced"? Ok, here' the billboard: Kill your wife! And send the video to my website! Nah, not the same. Ok, wait. Let me think. How about this? Video tape your neighbor killing his wife and send the video tape to me. Hmm. Not quite the same. How about: If you find a video of your neighbor killing his wife that he took and left out in front of you, and you are afraid he'll kill you if you say anything about it, send it to me. I'll take the "heat" for showing it. Yeah, that's about right. Tough moral dilemma. For some.
Post #337,009 by beepster 12/9/10 3:17:31 PM Reply	Nah, the first one is pretty close break the law and send me the spoils.... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,018 by crazy 12/9/10 6:48:19 PM Reply	And we all know that we pick and choose the laws we adhere to. At least some of us do. Based on our own perceived likelyhood of harm of the act, combined with harm of getting caught, and then roll the dice. And we certainly look at the law of other countries with a mixture of awe and contempt. So you feel that a non US citizen should adhere to some type of ruleset that makes him beholden to US laws, laws that we don't even enforce against our own citizens? And in this case, they still haven't come up with a law he's broken. So now non-US citizens have to be concerned about the random political implications of their acts when a random powerful person can cause them indirect damage through back channels. Holy shit. This sounds like a scenario that we should document and send to wikileaks. It's an obvious case of power abuse. Beep, this is the exact reason what he is doing is important and good. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
Post #337,020 by beepster 12/9/10 6:52:02 PM Reply	Okee dokee. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,029 by folkert 12/9/10 8:33:02 PM Reply	Answer me on question. Are you familiar with the "Pentagon Papers" from 1971?
Post #337,073 by beepster 12/10/10 5:38:01 AM Reply	Yes dear. But you appear to still be missing my point if you think this is relevant. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,097 by drook 12/10/10 1:43:10 PM Reply	People seem to miss your point pretty frequently Why do you think that is? -- Drew
Post #337,129 by beepster 12/11/10 1:10:39 PM Reply	Too busy with hero worship, perhaps? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,074 by beepster 12/10/10 5:38:02 AM 12/10/10 5:38:30 AM Reply	Mouse gone haywire...dupe Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are. Edited by beepster Dec. 10, 2010, 05:38:30 AM EST Expand All History
Post #337,110 by Ashton 12/11/10 2:56:58 AM Reply	Think you've got it But in a place wherein bizness is the majority National Religion and where there are so many persons 'whose job (or other affiliation) depends upon their not knowing certain things' ... well, you can see that Logic is not Enough. I guess we all lack experience in the now, post-deductive society (however well we may have adapted to the post-literate era of the '00s ... so evidently a new relative-minimum on the curve.) But a whole series of new relative-MINs? Who'd a thunk that average-lowering could become so contagious?! And so rapidly. I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #337,034 by lincoln 12/9/10 8:51:40 PM Reply	Re: So.. Beep says: I convinced you to kill someone...and I have no part in the crime. I like that. No such thing as accessory or conspiracy. Okay, instead of using the word "convinced" let's replace it with "inspired": Obviously, Glenn's a little sensitive about the violence thing these days because, after all, one of his nutty fans shot two Oakland cops this week en route to a planned terrorist attack on one of Beck's favorite scapegoats, the Tides Foundation. And he obviously thinks that piously declaring his opposition to violence will give him the fig leaf he needs to cover his fat ass. http://crooksandliar...re-glenn-beck-pre Make no mistake: Glenn Beck has been inciting acts of terrorist violence, and the Byron Williams case clearly establishes it -- even though it is far from the first such case. It in fact was preceded by several similar cases in which the dehumanizing rhetoric, scapegoating and conspiracist smears promoted by Fox clearly played a powerful role in the violence that ensued: -- Jim David Adkisson's shooting attack on a Knoxville Unitarian church. Adkisson left behind a manifesto that repeated numerous right-wing talking points generated by Fox commentators and specifically cited a Bernard Goldberg book. His library at home was stocked with books by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. -- Richard Poplawski's shooting of three Pittsburgh police officers, because he believed a conspiracy theory that President Obama intended to take Americans' guns away from them, and he reportedly believed the cops had arrived to carry it out. Poplawski, a white supremacist, liked to post Beck videos about FEMA concentration camps to the Stormfront comments board. -- Scott Roeder's assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Roeder was heavily involved in Operation Rescue and avidly read its newsletters -- which featured weekly pieces from Bill O'Reilly, including several attacking Tiller as a "baby killer" -- and its website, which liked to feature O'Reilly videos attacking Dr. Tiller. Indeed, O'Reilly had indulged a high-profile and unusually obsessive (not to mention vicious) jihad against Tiller, resulting in 42 such attacks on Tiller, 24 of which referred to him generically as a "baby killer." http://crooksandliar...wanda-schtick-tra [all of the bolded text are links in the original story] Well paid people on the Fox Network have been getting away with it for several years; yet, they wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and escape responsibility. "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #337,075 by beepster 12/10/10 5:42:16 AM Reply	chuckle knew it would get to a fox news reference at some point. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,138 by lincoln 12/11/10 7:38:21 PM Reply	Not Fox News, Fox Network There is a difference... "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #337,149 by boxley 12/11/10 8:26:28 PM Reply	bookmarked, thanks Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #336,947 by folkert 12/8/10 5:36:58 PM Reply	Again... you skipped the question. Other than conjecture, assumptions and accusations, can you tell me his intent of the activities to harm the US? And him being a non-citizen, he has no imperative to protect those secrets. I guess, you are also assuming I'm all for transparency on my personal data. Since banks are already sharing on my credit report everything I do buy, pay, owe, own and so on... Its nearly publicly available in any case. Plus my criminal record (yes I have broken the law and paid my fines for speeding)... is publicly available. Plus my SSN is used as a clearing house number... Hmmm... I don't really see your cry of foul.
Post #336,951 by beepster 12/8/10 6:23:28 PM Reply	didnt skip. posted his intent. You respond to that intent by saying he has no imperative to protect them. Fine. That means they can't prosecute him. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #336,954 by folkert 12/8/10 8:04:41 PM Reply	If anyone should be prosecuted... The person that gave him those secrets and actually broke the laws. Mainly because his intent can be determined; plus he is/was subject to the UCMJ, which is far more deterministic and pins blame very distinctly.

Welcome to IWETHEY!