IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Open Forum / Again... you skipped the question.
Post #336,947
by folkert
Picture of folkert
12/8/10 5:36:58 PM
Reply
New 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
New 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
Picture of folkert
12/8/10 8:04:41 PM
Reply
New 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.
     Truer colors, perhaps? - (beepster) - (70) - Dec. 6, 2010, 09:27:13 AM EST
         What, you mean he's defending himself? What a surprise -NT - (drook) - (26) - Dec. 6, 2010, 10:35:52 AM EST
             Ah, I see. At any cost - (beepster) - (24) - Dec. 6, 2010, 10:45:36 AM EST
                 I'll try, once - (drook) - (22) - Dec. 6, 2010, 11:20:29 AM EST
                     Thats not my argument at all. - (beepster) - (21) - Dec. 6, 2010, 11:39:29 AM EST
                         no, he is just a well known leaker - (boxley) - Dec. 6, 2010, 12:01:43 PM EST
                         Why do you trust him less than the government? - (drook) - (19) - Dec. 6, 2010, 12:44:35 PM EST
                             Excuse me? - (beepster) - (18) - Dec. 6, 2010, 03:52:48 PM EST
                                 Just this - (drook) - (17) - Dec. 6, 2010, 07:45:10 PM EST
                                     That you know of... - (beepster) - (16) - Dec. 7, 2010, 06:32:57 AM EST
                                         Theoreticals VS actuals - (crazy) - (15) - Dec. 7, 2010, 07:38:19 AM EST
                                             You are back to binary argument - (beepster) - (14) - Dec. 7, 2010, 08:58:18 AM EST
                                                 It IS binary - (crazy) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2010, 10:13:20 AM EST
                                                     No, I don't and no its not. - (beepster) - Dec. 7, 2010, 02:48:37 PM EST
                                                 Ahh, we agree - (drook) - (11) - Dec. 7, 2010, 12:15:51 PM EST
                                                     Not quite. - (beepster) - (10) - Dec. 7, 2010, 02:50:49 PM EST
                                                         You're strawmanning a bit there, Beep - (jake123) - (7) - Dec. 7, 2010, 03:08:39 PM EST
                                                             Threat made - (beepster) - (6) - Dec. 7, 2010, 03:22:43 PM EST
                                                                 Is that any different from what's happening now? - (jake123) - (5) - Dec. 7, 2010, 03:44:35 PM EST
                                                                     a lot of info is for sale - (boxley) - Dec. 7, 2010, 04:04:19 PM EST
                                                                     Lest I continue to have to repeat myself... - (beepster) - (3) - Dec. 7, 2010, 05:18:15 PM EST
                                                                         legitimate double standards - (crazy) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2010, 03:44:54 AM EST
                                                                             change legitimate to real then...if it suits you -NT - (beepster) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2010, 03:16:13 PM EST
                                                                                 An acceptable response - (crazy) - Dec. 9, 2010, 06:38:33 PM EST
                                                         BeeP uses a strawman ... news at 11 - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2010, 03:26:25 PM EST
                                                             Yep, - (beepster) - Dec. 7, 2010, 03:27:44 PM EST
                 Re: Ah, I see. At any cost. | this-all has been >Novelized< - (Ashton) - Dec. 8, 2010, 01:40:48 AM EST
             There are ALWAYS checks and balances - (mhuber) - Dec. 6, 2010, 01:48:23 PM EST
         try defense -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 6, 2010, 10:45:42 AM EST
         From the comments, interesting point - (crazy) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2010, 02:10:38 PM EST
             unanticipated side effects -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 6, 2010, 02:39:52 PM EST
         what law did he break? - (boxley) - (34) - Dec. 6, 2010, 02:50:03 PM EST
             Receipt of stolen goods? Dunno. There's always "conspiracy". -NT - (Another Scott) - (29) - Dec. 6, 2010, 05:28:08 PM EST
                 Same thing that convicted Steve Rosen - (beepster) - (28) - Dec. 6, 2010, 06:15:11 PM EST
                     So, we have officially declared war then? - (folkert) - (27) - Dec. 6, 2010, 07:11:08 PM EST
                         You should read it... - (beepster) - (26) - Dec. 6, 2010, 07:37:01 PM EST
                             But it *DOES* require intent. -NT - (folkert) - (25) - Dec. 7, 2010, 03:35:54 AM EST
                                 Can you tell me his intent? - (folkert) - (24) - Dec. 8, 2010, 08:28:41 AM EST
                                     Wait, let me weep. - (beepster) - (23) - Dec. 8, 2010, 11:08:38 AM EST
                                         Is it OK that the NYT has reprinted what he released? - (drook) - (19) - Dec. 8, 2010, 11:25:23 AM EST
                                             Where did they get it? - (beepster) - (18) - Dec. 8, 2010, 11:50:53 AM EST
                                                 Huh? - (drook) - (17) - Dec. 8, 2010, 12:52:09 PM EST
                                                     Re: Huh? - (beepster) - (16) - Dec. 8, 2010, 06:21:06 PM EST
                                                         The original sin... - (folkert) - (15) - Dec. 8, 2010, 08:05:28 PM EST
                                                             So.. - (beepster) - (14) - Dec. 9, 2010, 01:46:19 AM EST
                                                                 "Convinced"? - (crazy) - (9) - Dec. 9, 2010, 03:57:25 AM EST
                                                                     Nah, the first one is pretty close - (beepster) - (8) - Dec. 9, 2010, 03:17:31 PM EST
                                                                         And we all know - (crazy) - (7) - Dec. 9, 2010, 06:48:19 PM EST
                                                                             Okee dokee. -NT - (beepster) - (5) - Dec. 9, 2010, 06:52:02 PM EST
                                                                                 Answer me on question. - (folkert) - (4) - Dec. 9, 2010, 08:33:02 PM EST
                                                                                     Yes dear. - (beepster) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2010, 05:38:01 AM EST
                                                                                         People seem to miss your point pretty frequently - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2010, 01:43:10 PM EST
                                                                                             Too busy with hero worship, perhaps? -NT - (beepster) - Dec. 11, 2010, 01:10:39 PM EST
                                                                                     Mouse gone haywire...dupe -NT - (beepster) - Dec. 10, 2010, 05:38:30 AM EST
                                                                             Think you've got it - (Ashton) - Dec. 11, 2010, 02:56:58 AM EST
                                                                 Re: So.. - (lincoln) - (3) - Dec. 9, 2010, 08:51:40 PM EST
                                                                     chuckle - (beepster) - (2) - Dec. 10, 2010, 05:42:16 AM EST
                                                                         Not Fox News, Fox Network - (lincoln) - (1) - Dec. 11, 2010, 07:38:21 PM EST
                                                                             bookmarked, thanks -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 11, 2010, 08:26:28 PM EST
                                         Again... you skipped the question. - (folkert) - (2) - Dec. 8, 2010, 05:36:58 PM EST
                                             didnt skip. - (beepster) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2010, 06:23:28 PM EST
                                                 If anyone should be prosecuted... - (folkert) - Dec. 8, 2010, 08:04:41 PM EST
             Good question - (jay) - (3) - Dec. 7, 2010, 10:53:43 AM EST
                 Assange is the equivelant of the NYT - (boxley) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2010, 11:11:07 AM EST
                     You say that like it's a bad thing - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2010, 12:15:36 PM EST
                         "I" didnt say anything - (boxley) - Dec. 7, 2010, 12:29:04 PM EST
         Counterpoint. - (Another Scott) - (4) - Dec. 7, 2010, 10:59:13 PM EST
             +6 -- Scale & Relativity! - (Ashton) - (3) - Dec. 8, 2010, 02:16:19 AM EST
                 Doubt it matters - (crazy) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2010, 04:17:11 AM EST
                     Pretty close... - (beepster) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2010, 03:19:16 PM EST
                         Oh, that's easy - (crazy) - Dec. 9, 2010, 06:57:01 PM EST

Beware of things that go blimp in the night...
234 ms