Go ahead & post all of your credit card info, social security #'s, embarrassing pictures & dirty skeletons in your closet.
After all, we don't need any secrets among us here at Snowest.
wikileaks?
- Thread starter ruffryder
- Start date
Go ahead & post all of your credit card info, social security #'s, embarrassing pictures & dirty skeletons in your closet.
After all, we don't need any secrets among us here at Snowest.
It's illuminati, unless you're talking about your garden-variety paranoid conspiracy types and their "tinfoil" hats, in which case it would, in fact, be Aluminati.
I'm not generally a conspiracy guy but I think that this scandal is about discrediting those who take a firm position on dealing with islamic radicals AND the real target is Hillary Clinton.
As SECSTATE she has, necessarily, come to the right (center) of her previous leftist positions on national defense.
Obama is a weak president and his administration is a mess.
Hillary IMO stands as the single greatest challenge to Obama in the 2012 Democratic Primary
For those of you who don't remember the Pentagon Papers case I think this ruling pretty clearly applies to wikileaks which is no different in essence than the New York Times.
In the 1971 case of New York Times v. United States, which dealt with the release of the “Pentagon Papers,” the Nixon administration's Solicitor General flatly told U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black that vague assertions of “national security” negate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Now, Mr. Justice [BLACK], your construction of ... [the First Amendment] is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that 'no law' does not mean 'no law,' and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true.
This logical impossibility — a blatant negation of the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution — appears to be the Obama administration's position as well: “Congress shall make no law” can sometimes mean “we can do whatever we want” if they claim they've got a good reason. Black replied in a Supreme Court concurrence to the Pentagon Papers case that cogently dismissed the government argument:
"Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country....The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged."
Hopefully this wisdom and filail adherence to the philosophy of the founding fathers will win the way today as it did nearly 40 years ago as the obama administration is trying to destroy wikileaks and is the first ever deliberate act of systematic censorship of the web by the US Government against a journalistic organization that has only been doing what other journalists have traditionally done without government reprisal, at least in the US: uncover the truth, including classified government malfeasance. It would be a very small step from the crusade against wikileaks to broader efforts to purge the internet of all dissent labled as "Hate Speach". It is not difficult, for example, during the coming financial collapse, barring all online criticisim of the Federal Reserve, in the interest of preserving financial stability.
As for Mr Asange's rape charges they stem from mutually consenting sex with two women, except it was unprotected sex which is against the law in Sweden, how would you care to adhere to such rules in your sex lives, I don't think there is any real issue there. Swampy
In the 1971 case of New York Times v. United States, which dealt with the release of the “Pentagon Papers,” the Nixon administration's Solicitor General flatly told U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black that vague assertions of “national security” negate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Now, Mr. Justice [BLACK], your construction of ... [the First Amendment] is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that 'no law' does not mean 'no law,' and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true.
This logical impossibility — a blatant negation of the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution — appears to be the Obama administration's position as well: “Congress shall make no law” can sometimes mean “we can do whatever we want” if they claim they've got a good reason. Black replied in a Supreme Court concurrence to the Pentagon Papers case that cogently dismissed the government argument:
"Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country....The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged."
Hopefully this wisdom and filail adherence to the philosophy of the founding fathers will win the way today as it did nearly 40 years ago as the obama administration is trying to destroy wikileaks and is the first ever deliberate act of systematic censorship of the web by the US Government against a journalistic organization that has only been doing what other journalists have traditionally done without government reprisal, at least in the US: uncover the truth, including classified government malfeasance. It would be a very small step from the crusade against wikileaks to broader efforts to purge the internet of all dissent labled as "Hate Speach". It is not difficult, for example, during the coming financial collapse, barring all online criticisim of the Federal Reserve, in the interest of preserving financial stability.
As for Mr Asange's rape charges they stem from mutually consenting sex with two women, except it was unprotected sex which is against the law in Sweden, how would you care to adhere to such rules in your sex lives, I don't think there is any real issue there. Swampy
Last edited:
S
shortstop20
Well-known member
Rapist? He was arrested for having sex without a condom. A messed up law to begin with.
See it's allready being implemented by the Obama administration, apparantly
H2 finally released to much sensitive information on the net. Swampy
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.41 Server at backcountryrebels.com Port 80
H2 finally released to much sensitive information on the net. Swampy
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.41 Server at backcountryrebels.com Port 80
it is a catch 22. no one is above telling the truth. no one. I understand some info in the wrong hands can kill US citizens, whether they be military or civilian. But i do have a hard time with people that lie for others protection.
I have always tried to have an honest and up front life. I would hope the govt tries to run the same way. no i am not going to post my visa number but honesty is the best policy.
should the marine who leaked the info be given a nobel peace prize or court maritialed?
I have always tried to have an honest and up front life. I would hope the govt tries to run the same way. no i am not going to post my visa number but honesty is the best policy.
should the marine who leaked the info be given a nobel peace prize or court maritialed?
R
RMK7SledHead
Well-known member
No doubt most people that know secrets have rules dictated to them about not spreading them....
i agree the army pfc should be hanged for treason and diplomacy should not be about lying to not hurt others.
Fixed...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...4-gingrich-calls-assange-an-qenemy-combatantq
Come on Swampy, at least post a link. Don't post that and act like those are your words.
Treason is EXACTLY what it is and he should be dealt with accordingly! We really need to bring back public stoning(not weed either)...
If we punished those who do wrong accordingly there would be far less crime, start cutting the hands off of thieves again and watch the theft rate drop dramatically!
Agreed!
I see where the founder of Wikileaks has included Michael Moore in his close group of friends.These friends are trying to help him in the situation he is in. Michael Moore has ruffed a few feathers himself. plowking
