How did that feel, to get shown up twice by someone you think of as a child? It must have hurt, otherwise you wouldn’t spend so much effort trying to belittle me. Keep trying. It’s not like anyone here thinks you have any credibility.
Here is an example of what a real libertarian would say. A rather different take than that of the teabagger scum.
The point is that we did publish information that would allow anyone with even a modicum of resources available to figure out how to build an atomic weapon. Scientist publish papers. Some freaking college grads pulled it off in the 60s (as noted in my link to the experiment), long before wikileaks, the web, and before Assange was even a twinkle in his dad’s adolescent eye. As you might have noticed, even though the design was able to be reverse engineered decades ago, we still don’t have dozens of countries with nuclear arsenals, even though many would like to have them. This isn’t because they don’t know how, it’s because it is hard, and getting the needed materials is also a bitch. Why spend all of that time and energy only to realize that U235-heavy Uranium isn’t exactly available at Walmart. Aside from that, while I haven’t read every document, I haven’t seen anything at all that would be even minimally equivalent to “A-bomb plans”, as there don’t appear to be any that have a security level above “Secret” in the database, and “Secret” is the classification that the government applies to just about everything, probably including whether the president favors boxers or briefs. Even the fun ones are fairly mild, and the sort of thing I’d typically expect an investigative journalist to uncover and report on. Such as:
Interesting, but I’m not pissing in my pants worrying about the repercussions of exposing that information. Do you have any documents that you find concerning, as I’d happily share my take on them specifically?
Again, I haven’t seen a single poster in this thread who denies that governments have a need to maintain some level of secrecy in certain circumstances, and even Assange acknowledges that some information should remain private. If anything that important was leaked, the problem isn’t that it was published, as there are far more nefarious ways of leaking information, it is that it was able to be leaked in the first place, especially via a massive data dump. I’m just not seeing anything in the documents that I would put in the category of “stuff that has to remain secret.”
How does it feel to be an irritating little prick .
They write themselves.
That’s incredible.
Bob Woodward says it would take ten years to read all the documents.
Zero tolerance. You either get locked up for 50 years or you wind up with a bullet in your head. Pretty soon, your oh-so-important, oh-so-high-and-might agenda doesn’t doesn’t seem quite THAT important.
Pretty good, especially when I get to point out what a lying douchebag you are. Like I’ve done twice now.
Like I said: scum. I’d call your sort scumbags, but that would imply you were contained.
And to think, I’m just asking for one example. I’ve read a bunch, and none even come close. 10 man years isn’t exactly a long time considering the number of people going through these. I’m guessing we hit that mark about 3 minutes after they were published.
So, know of any single example that you think rises to that level? I’m pretty sure Beck would be bloviating about it by now if there were, once he got done not denying that whole murder thing.
Just one.
Harsh penalties only fail to deter the really determined or really unbalanced. The result would be whistle-blowers less capable of considering some degree of secrecy (if any) and releasers less interested in actually attempting to talk about leaks with potentially immediate, lethal results.
Quite frankly, when it comes to leaks of this kind, I am happier with those leaking who would be curtailed by threats of a bullet to the head. At least they display some sense of prudent thinking.
So, some of this is being published in the New York Times. I heard this being discussed on NPR this morning. Which New York Times and NPR staffers should be assassinated, do you think?
You used the wrong word. “Scum” doesn’t mean: those of us who believe in democracy and would like to not increase the odds of our young men and women fighting overseas getting killed. Or those of us who believe that secret correspondence can lead to diplomacy which would result in less killing of both military and civilians.
So wrong word. But otherwise, we’re seeing eye to eye on this, champ.
It depends on what they actually revealed. If it is “classified” or “private”, their offices should be locked down. The presses stopped. Those who made the decision to print, arrested. This really isn’t that hard.
I have no idea what your point is here, Rev.
Except they aren’t fighting for democracy. They’re killing innocents and risking their own lives for the benefit of a few.
And there is no reason to believe this will actually result in a danger to anyone. Now, it would create some measure of accountability, which is good for democracy.
When has secrecy ever engendered democracy? It’s basically antithetical to it.
And how is being involved in the domestic affairs of other countries, torturing people, spying on them compatible with smaller government?
Let’s say I have confidential reports from the U.S. Army. My desire is to highlight what I think are problems, perhaps even large ones, with the way things are run. But within those reports are also things that, if released, will lead to foes getting information that may help them kill U.S. soldiers. Sometimes the difference is unclear. I need to decide which documents to release, and which to hold back.
Should I give the task of making that decision to you or Der Trihs?
Is it me or do the people who are defending Government’s right to keep secrets exactly the same ones who, upon hearing citizen’s protests regarding illegal searches and eavesdropping, say “If you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t be worried”?
And the same ones worried about “big government.” And the same ones who call the government a “predator” to justify opposition to health insurance regulation. And the same ones who lie us into fake wars and justify punishment without trial. And the same ones who root for torture. And the same ones who talked of “death panels” being organized by the government to save on Medicare expenditures. And the same ones who want to balance an economic crisis caused by the wealthy on the backs of middle class and working Americans. The same ones.