Time Man of the Year.
Without a doubt.
Without a doubt.
"The self proclaimed hacker that waged a DDoS attack on Wikileaks has been arrested and has had all his equipment seized. What is interesting is that local police conducted the raid and not a federal authority such as the FBI. The Jester (th3j35t3r) who has a reputation for attacking websites he disagrees with is said to be trying to raise $10,000 in expected lawyers fees.
Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and the UAE had similar thoughts.AussieReaper wrote:
It's reassuring to note how concerned the Middle East region really is with Iran and it's nuclear ambitions. I was a little shocked though that the Saudis wanted a military strike on Iran.
example,
"Abu Dhabi’s crown prince says “Ahmadinejad is Hitler” and that if air strikes won’t do the job in Iran, ground troops should be sent in."
"One UAE leader says, “Iran is establishing ‘emirates’ across the Muslim world, including south Lebanon and Gaza, sleeper ‘emirates’ in Kuwait, Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and the mother of all ‘emirates’ in southern Iraq, and now in Yemen.”
alsoOne of the leaks cable concerning another Arab leader, Egyptian president, "Mubarak hates Hamas, and considers them the same as Egypt's own Muslim Brotherhood, which he sees as his own most dangerous political threat" and when "asked about whether the U.S. should set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, Mubarak said, "you cannot leave" because "you would leave Iran in control," here is another one about Mubarak’s enduring genius . “Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is "well-known but I cannot say it publicly
wait, that might have workedThe leaks revealed that, the Saudi king shared his wisdom with an American official about how to track detainees once Guantanamo is closed: "I've just thought of something," the King added, and proposed implanting detainees with an electronic chip containing information about them and allowing their movements to be tracked with Bluetooth. This was done with horses and falcons, the King said.."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
I agree.Turquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Because hacking of any sort when it's not done by the government is illegal. DuhTurquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Maybe that law needs to change...JohnG@lt wrote:
Because hacking of any sort when it's not done by the government is illegal. DuhTurquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
Diplomats are more gossipy than Perez Hilton,huh? Discussing Medvedev's wife in official state docs is a must now? I would expect them to act a little bit more professional but since I don't grasp the role of diplomacyFEOS wrote:
So you're essentially stating you don't grasp the role of diplomacy in the defense of national interests, regardless of which nation owns those interests.Ticia wrote:
In the only country in the world where international treaties are ruled as national laws therefore are under constitutional transparency? Really?FEOS wrote:
Fixed. Diplomacy is not about transparency. Never was, never will be.
I can't help but remember how If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear was frequently used by the American government just a few years back.
You're acting as if the US is the only country whose diplomats act/talk in this fashion. It's not. It's just the only country that has had it's diplomatic correspondence exposed for the world to see. Hence the <insert country name here> quip. Nor is it the only country who treats treaties as national law.
You're acting as if your government never tried to hide from their citizens how duplicitous its foreign policy is and how servile it has been towards corporate interests. Then why the need to gloss over the injustices and illegalities and turn them into great achievements of exceptionalism?
For the rest of the world this is nothing new since we have been well aware of your government unscrupulous meddling in places like Central America and the Middle East with complete neglect for the autonomy of other nations.
But I guess nothing of this really matters to any of you so as usual the American public will demonize the messenger and ignore the message.
I'm not bothered about actual terrorist websites being attacked but not sites that host information that might be useful to terrorists.
I'm not sure what exactly denotes Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization".Turquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
So if the only problem was trusting the wrong guy and he is now out of the picture why did the State Department had the need to shut down Siprnet temporarily and is now fixing any deficiencies in the system and altering the access rules?FEOS wrote:
Manning was an intel troop. He had access to far more than SIPRNET. SIPRNET is a pretty far-spread network that's used for day-to-day operations for the military and other US government branches. Not a "huge risk" by any stretch, as the highest classification on there is SECRET, and every person in the DoD and DoS has a SECRET clearance (for the most part).
Since it was flawless from the beginning, why bother?
First drop the condescending tone, then maybe I'll take the time to read what you wrote here. Are we clear?FEOS wrote:
Again, learn a bit what diplomacy is for and how it actually works.
Those cables were providing blunt assessments, via secure diplomatic channels, regarding various aspects of world leaders and their approaches to various issues--directly and indirectly relevant as well as irrelevant to US interests in the region and abroad. Go to any country's State Dept equivalent and you'll see the same kind of traffic (probably about the US), focused on that country's interests. You're from Portugal, right? Portugal's Foreign Ministry (or whatever it's called) has identical embarrassing traffic...I guarantee it. Of course, the US has some other traffic that some will not have due to its status as sole superpower. I'm sure Russia, the UK, and China have similar "embarrassing" traffic...and are glad they don't have some 20-year old fuckwit Lady Gaga fan who's enamored with Julian Assange working for them right now.
See, diplomacy is an instrument of national power. It is wielded to achieve national security objectives, just as military power, economic power, and informational power are--most effectively in concert with the other three. Those national security objectives are for the country in question, not for some other country, so the frank diplomatic cables going back and forth in (what they believe to be) secure channels are slanted in that regard--toward understood national objectives/interests. They aren't concerned about wounding some other country's inner fucking child because they aren't ever supposed to be disclosed and they are focused on one's own country's national interests...and nothing else.
Is that clear enough?
I think a more realistic approach is to simply cast out any delusions of being exceptional and simply do what's most practical.Ticia wrote:
Diplomats are more gossipy than Perez Hilton,huh? Discussing Medvedev's wife in official state docs is a must now? I would expect them to act a little bit more professional but since I don't grasp the role of diplomacy
You're acting as if your government never tried to hide from their citizens how duplicitous its foreign policy is and how servile it has been towards corporate interests. Then why the need to gloss over the injustices and illegalities and turn them into great achievements of exceptionalism?
For the rest of the world this is nothing new since we have been well aware of your government unscrupulous meddling in places like Central America and the Middle East with complete neglect for the autonomy of other nations.
But I guess nothing of this really matters to any of you so as usual the American public will demonize the messenger and ignore the message.
For the most part, that's how our foreign policy is. The public may rally around rhetoric, but the people actually doing the dirty work of government don't buy into it. They simply see it as a job to do with goals and objectives that must be met for national interests.
Along the way, there are some embarassing things that can be said mostly because they aren't expected to be revealed to the public. It's not like this is any different from how people behave in the private sector.
So yes, we are economically imperialistic, but so is any other major economic player. It's not a matter of morals -- it's a matter of strategic interests.
They are providing military intelligence to our enemies.Poseidon wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly denotes Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization".Turquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They're aiding terrorists by what they disclose. That may not make them actual terrorists, but it's pretty close.Poseidon wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly denotes Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization".Turquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
It's a matter of getting away with murder and have all nation behind them. You got what you deserve.Turquoise wrote:
I think a more realistic approach is to simply cast out any delusions of being exceptional and simply do what's most practical.Ticia wrote:
Diplomats are more gossipy than Perez Hilton,huh? Discussing Medvedev's wife in official state docs is a must now? I would expect them to act a little bit more professional but since I don't grasp the role of diplomacy
You're acting as if your government never tried to hide from their citizens how duplicitous its foreign policy is and how servile it has been towards corporate interests. Then why the need to gloss over the injustices and illegalities and turn them into great achievements of exceptionalism?
For the rest of the world this is nothing new since we have been well aware of your government unscrupulous meddling in places like Central America and the Middle East with complete neglect for the autonomy of other nations.
But I guess nothing of this really matters to any of you so as usual the American public will demonize the messenger and ignore the message.
For the most part, that's how our foreign policy is. The public may rally around rhetoric, but the people actually doing the dirty work of government don't buy into it. They simply see it as a job to do with goals and objectives that must be met for national interests.
Along the way, there are some embarassing things that can be said mostly because they aren't expected to be revealed to the public. It's not like this is any different from how people behave in the private sector.
So yes, we are economically imperialistic, but so is any other major economic player. It's not a matter of morals -- it's a matter of strategic interests.
Want to say the same of the media that published the info?Turquoise wrote:
They're aiding terrorists by what they disclose. That may not make them actual terrorists, but it's pretty close.Poseidon wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly denotes Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization".Turquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
Well, if that's your argument, then the entire Coalition of the Willing engaged in murder. That's an indictment against a large portion of the developed world. Good luck prosecuting it...Ticia wrote:
It's a matter of getting away with murder and have all nation behind them. You got what you deserve.
Republishing already leaked documents is different. Once the cat is out of the bag, it doesn't matter. You have to prosecute the source.Ticia wrote:
Want to say the same of the media that published the info?Turquoise wrote:
They're aiding terrorists by what they disclose. That may not make them actual terrorists, but it's pretty close.Poseidon wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly denotes Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization".
...who exactly are they terrorizing by releasing the documents?Turquoise wrote:
They're aiding terrorists by what they disclose. That may not make them actual terrorists, but it's pretty close.Poseidon wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly denotes Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization".Turquoise wrote:
It sounds like Jester should get a medal, not an arrest. If he's attacking terrorist websites and Wikileaks -- a site clearly aiding terrorists when it comes to information, then I don't see why that's illegal.
They're assholes. Not terrorists.
At least we had people on the streets making noise, you have a death warrant on a journalist.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if that's your argument, then the entire Coalition of the Willing engaged in murder. That's an indictment against a large portion of the developed world. Good luck prosecuting it...Ticia wrote:
It's a matter of getting away with murder and have all nation behind them. You got what you deserve.
See John's post. Aiding terror groups makes you an accessory to terrorism. That's what leaking sensitive documents from our military is doing.Poseidon wrote:
...who exactly are they terrorizing by releasing the documents?Turquoise wrote:
They're aiding terrorists by what they disclose. That may not make them actual terrorists, but it's pretty close.Poseidon wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly denotes Wikileaks as a "terrorist organization".
They're assholes. Not terrorists.
You might as well be handing terror groups money when you do that sort of thing, so to me, it's basically the same level of criminality.
Well, the country that truly has death warrants on journalists is Mexico, but that's another discussion.Ticia wrote:
At least we had people on the streets making noise, you have a death warrant on a journalist.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if that's your argument, then the entire Coalition of the Willing engaged in murder. That's an indictment against a large portion of the developed world. Good luck prosecuting it...Ticia wrote:
It's a matter of getting away with murder and have all nation behind them. You got what you deserve.
Currently, we haven't done anything to Assange, although the Swedish government apparently is pursuing sex crime charges against him.
We had protesters against the Iraq War too, but fat lot of good that did.
lol at journalist.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's a very vague term. If someone writes an essay about the variety of bad press items (Abu Gharib, multiple civilian shooting events, etc) that were committed by US Troops and terrorists use it as an excuse to go behead some infidels, is the essay writer a terrorist too?Turquoise wrote:
See John's post. Aiding terror groups makes you an accessory to terrorism. That's what leaking sensitive documents from our military is doing.Poseidon wrote:
...who exactly are they terrorizing by releasing the documents?Turquoise wrote:
They're aiding terrorists by what they disclose. That may not make them actual terrorists, but it's pretty close.
They're assholes. Not terrorists.
You might as well be handing terror groups money when you do that sort of thing, so to me, it's basically the same level of criminality.
What they're doing is illegal and wrong, but I don't really think you can (or should) classify it as terrorism.
An essay is entirely different from leaking sensitive documents. Espionage against the government (especially in the context of an ongoing war) is aiding terrorism at the very least. If it cannot be considered terrorism outright, it should be regarded as aiding terror groups.Poseidon wrote:
That's a very vague term. If someone writes an essay about the variety of bad press items (Abu Gharib, multiple civilian shooting events, etc) that were committed by US Troops and terrorists use it as an excuse to go behead some infidels, is the essay writer a terrorist too?Turquoise wrote:
See John's post. Aiding terror groups makes you an accessory to terrorism. That's what leaking sensitive documents from our military is doing.Poseidon wrote:
...who exactly are they terrorizing by releasing the documents?
They're assholes. Not terrorists.
You might as well be handing terror groups money when you do that sort of thing, so to me, it's basically the same level of criminality.
What they're doing is illegal and wrong, but I don't really think you can (or should) classify it as terrorism.