19 ms·

I'm completely against making WL into a terrorist organization. But that's where we are headed -- or something very close to it. They're not publishers -- at le

I'm completely against making WL into a terrorist organization. But that's where we are headed -- or something very close to it. They're not publishers -- at least not in any normal sense I can fathom -- but they are certainly not terrorists either. My point being: if PayPal and others want to play hardball and refuse to shut down their payments because WL aren't criminals, the other side will just up the ante by making them criminals. This is a no-win situation for PayPal and other vendors associated with this CF. Ironically, the vendors who are voluntarily shutting off WL are probably doing the most to help the cause in the long term by not pushing the matter. WL supporters should really hope for a long spell of lowering the volume and everybody behaving like adults for a while. Probably won't happen, though.

sausagefeet 16y ago
> but they are certainly not terrorists either They certainly are instilling terror in US leaders :)
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I know you're trying to be funny, but my definition of a terrorist is somebody who uses stealth to deliberately target civilians in an effort to affect political change. So, as funny as you are, they're pretty close, just no banana. If it came out, however, that Assange and pals were considering that any civilian casualties they might cause as a key part of their effort to enact change, I might think very differently. So far, happily, that's not the case. I also think "fear" is a little bit self-congratulatory. Looks to me from watching politicians of every country and party respond, the appropriate phrase is much closer to "pissed off"
  - kurtosis 16y ago
    "my definition of a terrorist is somebody who uses stealth to deliberately target civilians in an effort to affect political change." Shouldn't the definition of terrorism include the fact that they are violently targeting civilians? Economic or computer terrorism that doesn't actually hurt or kill anyone doesn't meet the definition in my view - and the publishing work or WL definitely doesn't either.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      (Massively edited) No. The point is that the use of stealth and fear to purposely sway voters is a deliberate circumvention of the act of an intelligent population making an educated choice by voting. The actions which may induce this fear are not germane. Ruining commerce for a week, if it causes real harm to economic participants and sways voters, is good enough. You can release too much information and also interfere, perhaps even scare and cause harm. Using the fact that "it's only the truth" is not enough. It's a red herring. So they are walking a very fine line here, but as far as I can tell they're on the correct side of it. At least as far as the terrorism definition goes.
      - khafra 16y ago
        Is a certain amount of real harm that could credibly take place a requirement? Or could, say, Saw IV be terrorism if it had a political message? For contrast, the DoD's definition of terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
        DanielBMarkham 16y ago
        Or could, say, Saw IV be terrorism if it had a political message? How could a movie sneak up on a population and play itself to them? But -- playing a terrorist beheading to a bunch of captives at a local theater could, as long as it caused harm and was purposed to interfere with the democratic process. Terrorism and WL, although they are not the same (remember I am saying they are not the same), are both "meta" attacks. They don't attack the people, per se, they seek to destroy or change the system of governance the people use to make decisions. This is why the argument that only 2K people were killed while more people die in roadway accidents on 9-11 makes no sense. You don't count up the bodies from one attack or the other. It doesn't work like that. It's not a kinetic fight, or even a fight for land. It's a systemic fight.
      - alex_c 16y ago
        I never thought I'd be having this discussion on HN, but by that definition Fox News (and to a lesser extent other networks and/or "commentators") would qualify as a terrorist organization. As much as I dislike Fox News, actually extending the definition of terrorism far enough to include them, and Wikileaks, would dilute the definition to the point of uselessness (or, worse, to the point of including anyone you don't agree with who is trying to induce political change). I should probably start staying out of the WL discussions here, this is starting to sound too much like /r/politics :(
  - rue 16y ago
    I do not understand, at all, where "stealth" comes into your definition of terrorism, or why everyone else should follow that definition? Traditionally at least, terrorism has been "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." [dictionary.reference.com].
wnoise 16y ago
Don't start your analysis with "who they are", but with "what they do". What they do is pretty simple -- they disseminate information. This is commonly known as "publishing". They do not: commit violent acts, call for others to commit violent acts, give money to those doing violent acts.
burgerbrain 16y ago
You can't fathom a definition of "publishers" that includes "people who publish"? What the hell is your definition of 'publishers' then?

sausagefeet 16y ago

> but they are certainly not terrorists either They certainly are instilling terror in US leaders :)

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I know you're trying to be funny, but my definition of a terrorist is somebody who uses stealth to deliberately target civilians in an effort to affect political change. So, as funny as you are, they're pretty close, just no banana. If it came out, however, that Assange and pals were considering that any civilian casualties they might cause as a key part of their effort to enact change, I might think very differently. So far, happily, that's not the case. I also think "fear" is a little bit self-congratulatory. Looks to me from watching politicians of every country and party respond, the appropriate phrase is much closer to "pissed off"
- kurtosis 16y ago
  "my definition of a terrorist is somebody who uses stealth to deliberately target civilians in an effort to affect political change." Shouldn't the definition of terrorism include the fact that they are violently targeting civilians? Economic or computer terrorism that doesn't actually hurt or kill anyone doesn't meet the definition in my view - and the publishing work or WL definitely doesn't either.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    (Massively edited) No. The point is that the use of stealth and fear to purposely sway voters is a deliberate circumvention of the act of an intelligent population making an educated choice by voting. The actions which may induce this fear are not germane. Ruining commerce for a week, if it causes real harm to economic participants and sways voters, is good enough. You can release too much information and also interfere, perhaps even scare and cause harm. Using the fact that "it's only the truth" is not enough. It's a red herring. So they are walking a very fine line here, but as far as I can tell they're on the correct side of it. At least as far as the terrorism definition goes.
    - khafra 16y ago
      Is a certain amount of real harm that could credibly take place a requirement? Or could, say, Saw IV be terrorism if it had a political message? For contrast, the DoD's definition of terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
      - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
        Or could, say, Saw IV be terrorism if it had a political message? How could a movie sneak up on a population and play itself to them? But -- playing a terrorist beheading to a bunch of captives at a local theater could, as long as it caused harm and was purposed to interfere with the democratic process. Terrorism and WL, although they are not the same (remember I am saying they are not the same), are both "meta" attacks. They don't attack the people, per se, they seek to destroy or change the system of governance the people use to make decisions. This is why the argument that only 2K people were killed while more people die in roadway accidents on 9-11 makes no sense. You don't count up the bodies from one attack or the other. It doesn't work like that. It's not a kinetic fight, or even a fight for land. It's a systemic fight.
    - alex_c 16y ago
      I never thought I'd be having this discussion on HN, but by that definition Fox News (and to a lesser extent other networks and/or "commentators") would qualify as a terrorist organization. As much as I dislike Fox News, actually extending the definition of terrorism far enough to include them, and Wikileaks, would dilute the definition to the point of uselessness (or, worse, to the point of including anyone you don't agree with who is trying to induce political change). I should probably start staying out of the WL discussions here, this is starting to sound too much like /r/politics :(
- rue 16y ago
  I do not understand, at all, where "stealth" comes into your definition of terrorism, or why everyone else should follow that definition? Traditionally at least, terrorism has been "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." [dictionary.reference.com].

wnoise 16y ago

Don't start your analysis with "who they are", but with "what they do". What they do is pretty simple -- they disseminate information. This is commonly known as "publishing". They do not: commit violent acts, call for others to commit violent acts, give money to those doing violent acts.

burgerbrain 16y ago

You can't fathom a definition of "publishers" that includes "people who publish"? What the hell is your definition of 'publishers' then?