Beaker wrote: 

I haven't voted in decades dude.  I refuse to participate a system so blatantly corrupt.

 melissab wrote: 

There was considerable 'talking behind their backs'. Are we now better off knowing that?

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed_show_v2/300/2010/11/29/story/us_facing_global_diplomatic_crisis_following"><>

< src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed_show_v2/300/2010/11/29/story/us_facing_global_diplomatic_crisis_following" type="text/javascript"><
<><br /><br /><br /><br />
// ><>

rt,
Looks like a case of the hiccups...
mk

move on - these people really should have a talks behind their backs forum. Then we'd all be better off.

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 

Our system is just fine, thank you. The detainees were placed in Gitmo because there was no other viable place for them *and yup, viable means political*. A Military Tribunal, and they have been used before in the US, would suffice.

 peter_james_bond wrote: 

So, Richard Armitage, the one who confessed to revealing Valarie Plame, was lying? Or is Armitage and Cheney the same person?

 musik_knut wrote: 

If you need to fix your system then fix it.  Putting people in Guantanamo because you won't get the "right" answer in a court is not and never will be the solution

 Beaker wrote: 

And I'm not buying yours.  I'm not a disciple of Obama, if he said he would do that then he should.  Of course he won't because he's a lying politician no different from the rest.

 Beaker wrote: 
Where's your proof that WikiLeaks has released information that has gotten people killed? Robert Gates said a review of a previous large release of information from WikiLeaks "has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure"

WikiLeaks does go to some lengths to remove names and sensitive information (as do the newspapers that have the documents) from the leaked documents. They would appear to have more ethics than Dick Cheney who exposed a CIA operative Valerie Plame to get back at her husband who had exposed a serious lie put forth by the Bush administration.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

The more obvious difference: only integrity was killed. Wikileaks might lead to individuals being killed.

 Beaker wrote:

Well, you brought it up. I figured you had a point. My mistake.

Assange knows the risks (to him) of what he's doing. Somebody may indeed take him out; feel free to celebrate.

When Russian hackers published the Climategate emails you hailed it as a blow struck for Truth. Other than the target, how is this different?

 Beaker wrote: 

And what sort of penalty should those who have involved us in these wars on false pretenses be afforded?

 beamends wrote: 

The US offered 'fundamental right' of legal representation to Ahmed Ghailani, the mad bomber behind the simultaneous attacks on US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Many of us, knowing how convoluted the US Justice system can be, how demanding it is of evidence and so forth, knew that removing a Gitmo detainee from Gitmo and not using a Military Tribunal, would result in Mr. Ghailani escaping the more damning charges. 291 innocent souls were lost due to his actions yet in a Federal Court, he was found guilty only of committing conspiracy to damage property. I don't think most of the world outside the US understands our system, yet they bray on as if they do and we don't.
Many of us in the US understand the mindset of Attorneys such as Lynne Stewart, defender of the blind Egyptian Sheik who orchestrated the first attacks on the Twin Towers: she passed on messages from the Sheik to his equally radical supporters and then committed perjury when denying those actions. Most of the lawyers in the US who foam on about how radicals held at Gitmo must have a day in Court, are of that same liberal mindset.
If Khalid Sheik Mohammed, self-confessed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks *supported by data on his computers and other electronic means*, comes to a Federal Court, he will likely walk when the Court is fully instructed on interrogation methods used while being held at Gitmo. Wouldn't that be a fine day...he walks, 3,000 are dead due to his actions.
This administration, led by President Obama and the Attorney General, appear to want settings for radicals that will likely see a re-do of the nonsense findings in the case of Mr. Ghailani. Meanwhile, Team Obama promises that KSM will never be a free man. What if a Court says different? Working the system for the perpetrators of death and destruction invites such findings. Some of us, in the US, understand that. Many, outside the US, don't.

 Beaker wrote: 

So the penalty for theft should be summary execution?

 Beaker wrote:
What's your point?

Yes, Wikileaks is making powerful people angry. We knew that. Is there some secret Moscow is keeping that you think it would be bad for us to know?

 Beaker wrote: 
Yes, it's dangerous to be a journalist in Russia. This is from WikiPedia:

In its September 2009 report the Committee to Protect Journalists repeated its conclusion that Russia was one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists and added that it remains among the worst at solving their murders. The Anatomy of Injustice^<6> (Russian version: Анатомия безнаказанности^<7>) offers an account of the deaths of 17 journalists in Russia since 2000. They died or were killed, the CPJ is convinced, because of the work they were doing and in only one case, it notes, has there been a partially successful prosecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

Freedom of speech doesn't exist in Russia, and you're suggesting that the West should follow this horrendous example?

 Beaker wrote: 
Good call.
I'm still not sure what side of the fence I'm on though, I've been out of the news loop for a few days and have no clue what the facts are. (not that I think the news provides too many facts)

 musik_knut wrote: 
It would, I'm sure. If it was given the info and it was pertinent. Or even worth bothering with - for example what the UK thinks about such and such is pretty much irrelevant on a global scale. Wikileaks isn't about taking the piss, it's about wrongness. I'm also sure the every country spends quite a lot of time slagging off every other country too - just like neighbours in a street. Why is the US, seemingly, the main target? I'd go along with the Guardian article below - it's double standards - such as railing China for human rights abuses while denying the inmates of Guantanamo Bay the fundamental right of legal representation (never mind how they came to be there in the first place). It's evident from this forum that many (most?) US citizens don't see the contradiction, but many outside the US do.

If they were to post a load of stuff about China or Russia, both would just shrug and say "And?" - neither even pretends to hold the moral high ground.

 beamends wrote: 

Interestingly, and I don't know the laundry list of wikileaks, but it seems ever pointed at the US. Can anyone doubt that behind closed doors, chatter in other countries often brings about derogatory comments about other countries, other leaders and other global events?
Would wikileaks spill that pillow talk?

 peter_james_bond wrote: 
Damn it! An article in the Guardian I can't pick fault with - now that is annoying!