5 ms·

"We freely admit to doing illegal stuff, and the government needs to stop trying to figure out what we're up to." Yeah, that makes sense...

madair 17y ago
Legal != Moral
- jackfoxy 17y ago
  Moral != (Legal != Moral)
  - rntz 17y ago
    Moral != 1?
    - pohl 17y ago
      I think that's a boolean value on the right: Moral != true. Does this mean Legal == false?
      - techiferous 17y ago
        In Ruby, strings evaluate to true, so that would be Moral != "Moral"
cmelbye 17y ago
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. -- Henry David Thoreau
- tokenadult 17y ago
  That's easy for Thoreau to say when he lives alone in the woods. And that peaceful place in the woods was only his to live in because earlier English-speaking settlers in North America had gained that land from the aboriginal inhabitants.
  - olefoo 17y ago
    Thoreau spent a year in the woods, but he was not an anchorite by any stretch of the imagination. Besides being a civil libertarian he was also an accomplished engineer who developed pencil making machinery and built milling equipment.
- stan_rogers 17y ago
  And, as I have said here elsewhere, the disobedient must be willing to face the consequences of their disobedience else it means nothing. I have little respect for the draft dodgers of my youth, particularly those who now expect all will be forgotten when they return from Canada to visit their aging relatives, but for Mohammed Ali and others who subjected themselves to imprisonment, I have a great deal of respect.
Qz 17y ago
If you read the article, what they said is that the governments involved need to stop doing illegal things to try to figure out what they're up to.
Perceval 17y ago
If Wikileaks starts acting like a foreign intelligence agency, why are they surprised when the CIA starts treating them like a foreign intelligence agency?
- borism 17y ago
  which country's interests does Wikileaks represent?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
dsplittgerber 17y ago
Well, since the government makes the laws and can declare virtually everything top secret without any checks and balances whatsoever, they have virtually unlimited powers to stiffle unpleasant truths.
- borism 17y ago
  that's why whistleblowers are protected in democratic countries and why we need Wikileaks
- GHFigs 17y ago
  the government makes the laws Elected representatives make the laws. and can declare virtually everything top secret Only according to exemptions from the FOIA and other legislation (i.e. laws made by elected representatives). The relevant exemption here being for information "specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy". If you'd like to read the most recent Executive order to that effect: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 without any checks and balances Executive secrecy is subject to judicial review. This was established in amendments to the FOIA in 1974, which were in fact vetoed by the Executive, but the veto was overridden by Congress. You can read more here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/index.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/index.htm
  - dsplittgerber 17y ago
    Edit: From an Economist lexington column: "“How Free?” not only details and condemns the administration's familiar sins, from Guantánamo to extraordinary rendition to warrantless wiretapping. It reminds readers of its aversion to open government. The number of documents classified as secret has jumped from 8.7m in 2001 to 14.2m in 2005—a 60% increase over three years. Decade-old information has been reclassified. Researchers report that it is much more difficult and time-consuming to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act." The Economist: Lexington: Land of the free? http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TTPPNNQG http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cf... For 2001, about 8 million documents were classified. For 2004, there were 15,5 million documents classified. Just as an example of the trend I meant http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837061 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837061 That 'coincidentally' fits with Executive Order 13292, issued on March 25, increasing Vice President Cheney's classification authority, which he swiftly used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292 This is the graph from 2005 I originally remembered: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy_graphic.gif http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/03/politics/03se... NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy.html
metra 17y ago
Where does it say that?
- tbrownaw 17y ago
  ""U.S. must stop spying on WikiLeaks"" ""our ongoing work on a classified film"" ""our release of a classified 32 page US intelligence report"" ""our release of a classified cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik""
  - ytinas 17y ago
    So as soon as the US classifies something it is no longer valid, in your view, for anyone to show it? I guess they can do whatever they like then! Just classify everything that would otherwise be illegal.
    - lotharbot 17y ago
      Is is no longer legal for anyone to show it. That's the definition of "classified". Wikileaks is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to do illegal stuff for moral/philosophical reasons. On the other hand, they want the US government to stop treating them like they're doing illegal stuff. They're obtaining and releasing classified information, and at the same time complaining that the US government is spying on them. Doesn't this strike you as a little bit silly?
      - borism 17y ago
        Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! CIA is not law enforcement agency! Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!
        lotharbot 17y ago
        " Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! CIA is not law enforcement agency!" Right. The Central Intelligence Agency doesn't have "jurisdiction" the same way a law enforcement agency does, because they're not law enforcement. They exist to "collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence [and] engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law." "Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!" Imagine what a reckless policy it would be for the CIA to decide "we do not investigate Wikileaks because they're just whistleblowers". Wouldn't that make them a possible haven for actual foreign spies? Put another way: how do you know Wikileaks is completely free of foreign spies? The CIA, as an intelligence agency, has the duty to gather intelligence on groups like Wikileaks. They have the duty to have a clear understanding of what Wikileaks is doing, and to act against them (individually or as a group) if it is deemed necessary by the president or others in the chain of command.
shabda 17y ago
"We freely admit to doing (which is potentially) illegal stuff, and the government needs to stop trying to figure out what we're up to by intimidating our volunteers and instead sue us" - Why does this not make sense?

madair 17y ago

Legal != Moral

jackfoxy 17y ago
Moral != (Legal != Moral)
- rntz 17y ago
  Moral != 1?
  - pohl 17y ago
    I think that's a boolean value on the right: Moral != true. Does this mean Legal == false?
    - techiferous 17y ago
      In Ruby, strings evaluate to true, so that would be Moral != "Moral"

cmelbye 17y ago

Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. -- Henry David Thoreau

tokenadult 17y ago
That's easy for Thoreau to say when he lives alone in the woods. And that peaceful place in the woods was only his to live in because earlier English-speaking settlers in North America had gained that land from the aboriginal inhabitants.
- olefoo 17y ago
  Thoreau spent a year in the woods, but he was not an anchorite by any stretch of the imagination. Besides being a civil libertarian he was also an accomplished engineer who developed pencil making machinery and built milling equipment.
stan_rogers 17y ago
And, as I have said here elsewhere, the disobedient must be willing to face the consequences of their disobedience else it means nothing. I have little respect for the draft dodgers of my youth, particularly those who now expect all will be forgotten when they return from Canada to visit their aging relatives, but for Mohammed Ali and others who subjected themselves to imprisonment, I have a great deal of respect.

Qz 17y ago

If you read the article, what they said is that the governments involved need to stop doing illegal things to try to figure out what they're up to.

Perceval 17y ago

If Wikileaks starts acting like a foreign intelligence agency, why are they surprised when the CIA starts treating them like a foreign intelligence agency?

borism 17y ago
which country's interests does Wikileaks represent?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

dsplittgerber 17y ago

Well, since the government makes the laws and can declare virtually everything top secret without any checks and balances whatsoever, they have virtually unlimited powers to stiffle unpleasant truths.

borism 17y ago
that's why whistleblowers are protected in democratic countries and why we need Wikileaks
GHFigs 17y ago
the government makes the laws Elected representatives make the laws. and can declare virtually everything top secret Only according to exemptions from the FOIA and other legislation (i.e. laws made by elected representatives). The relevant exemption here being for information "specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy". If you'd like to read the most recent Executive order to that effect: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 without any checks and balances Executive secrecy is subject to judicial review. This was established in amendments to the FOIA in 1974, which were in fact vetoed by the Executive, but the veto was overridden by Congress. You can read more here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/index.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/index.htm
- dsplittgerber 17y ago
  Edit: From an Economist lexington column: "“How Free?” not only details and condemns the administration's familiar sins, from Guantánamo to extraordinary rendition to warrantless wiretapping. It reminds readers of its aversion to open government. The number of documents classified as secret has jumped from 8.7m in 2001 to 14.2m in 2005—a 60% increase over three years. Decade-old information has been reclassified. Researchers report that it is much more difficult and time-consuming to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act." The Economist: Lexington: Land of the free? http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TTPPNNQG http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cf... For 2001, about 8 million documents were classified. For 2004, there were 15,5 million documents classified. Just as an example of the trend I meant http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837061 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837061 That 'coincidentally' fits with Executive Order 13292, issued on March 25, increasing Vice President Cheney's classification authority, which he swiftly used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292 This is the graph from 2005 I originally remembered: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy_graphic.gif http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/03/politics/03se... NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy.html

metra 17y ago

Where does it say that?

tbrownaw 17y ago
""U.S. must stop spying on WikiLeaks"" ""our ongoing work on a classified film"" ""our release of a classified 32 page US intelligence report"" ""our release of a classified cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik""
- ytinas 17y ago
  So as soon as the US classifies something it is no longer valid, in your view, for anyone to show it? I guess they can do whatever they like then! Just classify everything that would otherwise be illegal.
  - lotharbot 17y ago
    Is is no longer legal for anyone to show it. That's the definition of "classified". Wikileaks is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to do illegal stuff for moral/philosophical reasons. On the other hand, they want the US government to stop treating them like they're doing illegal stuff. They're obtaining and releasing classified information, and at the same time complaining that the US government is spying on them. Doesn't this strike you as a little bit silly?
    - borism 17y ago
      Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! CIA is not law enforcement agency! Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!
      - lotharbot 17y ago
        " Iceland or any other country is not under US jurisdiction! CIA is not law enforcement agency!" Right. The Central Intelligence Agency doesn't have "jurisdiction" the same way a law enforcement agency does, because they're not law enforcement. They exist to "collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence [and] engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law." "Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!" Imagine what a reckless policy it would be for the CIA to decide "we do not investigate Wikileaks because they're just whistleblowers". Wouldn't that make them a possible haven for actual foreign spies? Put another way: how do you know Wikileaks is completely free of foreign spies? The CIA, as an intelligence agency, has the duty to gather intelligence on groups like Wikileaks. They have the duty to have a clear understanding of what Wikileaks is doing, and to act against them (individually or as a group) if it is deemed necessary by the president or others in the chain of command.

shabda 17y ago

"We freely admit to doing (which is potentially) illegal stuff, and the government needs to stop trying to figure out what we're up to by intimidating our volunteers and instead sue us" - Why does this not make sense?