When you put innocent lives at risk for some self satisfying agenda that isn't yours to take to begin with and threaten to do this and that, it makes you no better then the spineless terrorist that seek to cause death and destruction.
With any luck, Jullian whatever his name is will get what's coming to him via the legal system.
There's a fine line here between the right to know and information held for the good of all. The problem has been Government abuse of withholding information and unneeded secrecy of ordinary Government business. What exactly is the Government doing? Should we know? Do we have a right to know? Who decides? To much secrecy can lead to a loss of liberty and freedoms. I don't want to blindly follow what the Gov. says.
Permalink Reply by XLFD on December 6, 2010 at 4:20pm
I think I am treading on that fine line with the city of Ludington and its quest for secrecy of public records that should be open to all-- even me.
Federal FOIA, and Privacy acts try to define that line, and there are plenty of things that are public records that should be kept state secrets. If the Wiki-liki has given out secrets that compromise the necessary confidentiality of such records, he should be dealt with severely, as should anyone who gave him information without following the rules of disclosure.
The larger problem is that evidently we had, ( in a intelligence position no less) A young subversive willing to rob military intelligence for no more than honorable mention in some expose the planet plot by Wikis founder. That boy has ruined his life and may never see the light of day again. I have to wonder how many military men/woman we have that were vetted as badly as this kid... And the Major doctor who blew away how many innocent people trying to save the world as he sees it?
Permalink Reply by Max on December 6, 2010 at 11:05pm
"A spineless turd."
He may be that and more, but I'm not so sure he is a criminal.
The Supreme Court has ruled that publishing secret government documents is legal as long as it is "in the public interest", protected by the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Well I was just reading that Visa suspended all payments directed to wikileaks, along with paypal. Mastercard is looking into also suspending payments. The logic they are using is:“rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal.” Last I heard the government was looking into what charges they could bring against the founder - the government hasn't figured that out but Visa/MC has. I don't like what he's done but I'm really against credit card companies deciding where I can spend money.
Permalink Reply by XLFD on December 7, 2010 at 2:43pm
Good point, Lisa. But I do think they have that right as free businesses to do so, particularly if they are fairly certain of Wikileak's illegality, their legality to sever their contract with Wikileaks, and figure it will not hurt their overall image to the public and other users. They likely don't need to allow Wikileaks to prove its innocence unless it violates some agreement.
A lot of times more often than not, a large corporation will pull funding for or business with any person place or organization that due to bad Charma, or such may give their own organization a bad name. I see the pulling of Visa or MasterCard's handling of funding no different than corporate sponsors bail out on Tiger Woods or Vick the dog fighter.
I don't see it that way at all - they were not sponsoring wikileaks. In my opinion they decided to chose where their card users could use their money. Whats next are they going to jump on the government band wagon about obesity and decide card holders are not allowed to charge fast food, or cigarettes? I read another article that certain ISP providers were blocking access to wikileaks - are they for real? this is where they flex their muscle why don't they block access to child porn sites?
I guess I would respectfully disagree. Anything we do in life, purchasers we make, sites we visit, TV channels we watch etc.. all go to support things. Businesses are acutely aware of the fact anything they have their names attached to can and often does come back to bite them. Money is tender and its use supports causes grows businesses both good and bad ones. While most of us on here agree the owner of Wikileaks is a dirt bag. He has not made a major breach of law only because laws have not been upgraded to include the internet...yet..
The effect of this is any company doing business has had to decide, what is in its own best interest, to stay with the support of the majority of its customers.
And yeah RJE I agree it in this case is pretty bad when a set of companies decide it is more in line with its customers good sensibilities to shut down a information gathering site for (being too sleazy) is it not?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black or is it the fridge calling the stove hot? . Credit card companies that regularly rob us blind with Government approval are taking the high road. What a bunch of corporate hypocrites.