Wikileaks strikes again
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=187218
Printed Date: 01 January 2026 at 9:41am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Wikileaks strikes again
Posted By: choopie911
Subject: Wikileaks strikes again
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 4:48pm
|
So I'm sure many of you heard about this going to happen, and today it did: Wikileaks released essentially the un-edited opinions and actions of the USA. For the last few days the US has been sending out diplomats to brief their allys on what to expect, fearing backlash/ being pretty redfaced for a while.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-Diplomatic-crisis-Americas-secret-cables-published-online.html?ITO=1490 - One link, google wikileaks for a TON more |
Replies:
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 5:48pm
|
I really think this is unacceptable. Though no doubt many people here are going to applaud their actions.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 5:51pm
|
I've not read the whole article just yet, but from the sound of things. So I may alter this statement when I get the chance to read it, but I don't sympathize much for the government when it chooses to make questionable decisions in the hopes that it stays a secret. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 5:55pm
|
It strikes me as being a bit douchey. Not really any real need for this info to come out especially not the way it did. How the hell do you "leak" that much info anyway? From what I've seen there will probably be some pretty serious consequences. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 6:35pm
|
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. While I could understand the motive behind the whole helicopter attack video released a few months back, this is wreckless in my opinion. It makes me question whether Assange is an "information activist" or an "information terrorist"-and I realize I'll probably be flamed for that.
For a loose comparison, this is like hearing your friend say something bad about another friend's wife and then posting it on his Facebook. Only, of course, this isn't FB, it's the free world.
While some of this is legitimately slimey stuff, other things strike me as being psych profiles on the leaders of other nations. Why is that information the US shouldn't have? And why does anyone need to know that?
I'm not going to throw down total condemnation on WikiLeaks, I really do try to abstain from that as of late. I do my best to let these things play out, and more often than not my opinion is changed. But it really rubs me as wreckless.
|
_sneaky_ wrote:Posted By: NiQ-Toto
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 7:33pm
|
For sure he is an information terrorist. He wants the gov'ts of the world to recognize that in the future there will be transparency whether they like it or not. This is the way the world is heading and he is at the head of the movement. I think (hope) his goal is to have the world become a more diplomatic place, where all governments are upfront with their people and their intentions. And when this happens we will be able to rid the governments of all the slimeballs because all their wrongdoings have been exposed.
At least, thats what i hope happens. I'm an idealist. In the real world, Assange is just an asshole who is leaking sensitive information that is meant to embarrass people in power, and no real changes will come from this. ------------- ///AMG What? |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 7:45pm
 ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 7:45pm
Interesting tweet of the day:
A bit of an oversimplification, but funny timing. |
Posted By: NiQ-Toto
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 8:13pm
------------- ///AMG What? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 9:22pm
|
I'll bring up again the fun irony that everyone seemed to love WikiLeaks when they were exposing the bad things China, Russia and North Korea were doing behind closed doors. That spotlight looks pretty when you're not under it. Then, it gets awfully warm. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 9:32pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 9:33pm
|
/waits for some brake lines to get cut
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 9:35pm
This has been said before, but I really don't expect anything to happen to Assange. He's posted things from the Russian government before without repercussion. And that is a country that will blatantly poison a journalist for questioning Putin. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 10:45pm
|
It will be a good good day when Assagne either A) Gets thrown in jail for the supposed rapes, B) Gets thrown in jail for these leaks, or C) Car falls off the cliff.
I'd be content with all 3. ------------- 
|
Posted By: NiQ-Toto
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 10:52pm
|
Linus, i respectfully disagree. What his org is doing is the new generation of checks and balances. As long as there is an outlet for this information, it should be released to keep the politicians clean. ------------- ///AMG What? |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 10:58pm
|
I honestly don't see why several of you dislike the guy so much. He's not the one making these decisions, or leaking the information. Seriously, if the person who leaked this stuff, wanted it to get out, there are anywhere from dozens, to hundreds of media outlets who would be more than happy to slap this on their front page or in their broadcast. The entire basis of our government was founded upon the government answering to us - not the other way around. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 11:00pm
Drink the kool-aid much? I fail to see how what they do is a check OR balance. Is it a check and balance when they doctor the footage to meet their political goals like they did with the helicopter footage? What are they keeping in check by releasing sensitive materials about ongoing situations? Seriously, this has NOTHING to do with keeping politicians clean, this is a man who is manipulating the system to get his 15 minutes in the sun. What happens when he leaks information that gets an informant, or troops killed.* If he wants to promote a cleaned up political system, why isn't he operating a watchdog group that is pouring over the account statements of POLITICIANS, instead of revealing where we have spies, what government members asses other leaders as, etc. Seems like a load of crap to me. *Because, you know, pretending that our gunships were gunning down innocents and putting that out on the internet was TOTALLY for a transparent government, the terrorists would never use that to recruit more soldiers. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: NiQ-Toto
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 11:41pm
|
Let me preface this by saying it is going to be a ramble. If it doesnt make sense ask me to clarify my point. If i misunderstand something that is going on in the world please correct me but dont be a dick about it.
Ok, i need to be clear, which i guess (read: know) i havent been. I do not fully support Assange and his org, I do not agree with their tactics, but i do see that this is where the distribution of information is heading and people are either going to accept it and become upfront about what is happening, or try to shut anything like this down. Editing footage or lying about events is one thing i can never support, but releasing the sheer number of doc's they have just for the sake of saying "hey we know what youre doing"? I can agree with that, even if it puts people who are already in sketchy situations in danger. These people knew what they were signing up for when they signed up. They are informants to governments which brings an inherent risk of pissing people off. When they decided to inform, they took on this risk of being outed as an informant. If they dont like that realization, invent a time machine and DONT DO IT. As sad as i am to say it, troops too. For the past few years they have to have known that we are fighting a useless war that the average american has forgotten about, and those that havent just want their god damn kids home. They cant get out, and it sucks. Even if they know what i believe, and if they believe it too, they are stuck. If outing our strategic moves expedites a "retreat" from the middle east im all for it. The only problem is that we can not abandon the occupied countries we're in without severely screwing up their entire political dynamic causing a gigantic collapse of pretty much everything weve "worked for" (aka bombed the crap out of). Postscript: I dont really like my government right now, i dont really like anyone right now to be honest. I find it hard to get behind a movement when it's motives can be so cloudy. It doesnt matter how white knight-ish the group might be, there is always a bottom line. This realization has severely jaded my worldview and is influencing me more and more to run from my student loan (aka unjustified $100,000 that was supposed to help me in the long run) debts and leave the country to start a new life on a nice little island in the south pacific. ------------- ///AMG What? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 5:42am
| Interesting that http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/american-escape-iran-horse-turkey - this story came to light through this, and not before :S |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 6:41am
^
I lol'd. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 12:01pm
Why am I not surprised? So you're a fan of the lack of transparency, Linus? ------------- |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 12:32pm
|
I don't mind transparency. I do people who stand in the limelight claiming they're trying to improve society when they're doing more harm than good. Intelligence requires a set of puzzle pieces to form the picture, and small bits of information can result in much larger dividends. I do think that Assange is disseminating those puzzle pieces at this point. Stuff like the Collateral Murder video I think is totally reasonable to release -- yet Assange chose to do so in an entirely biased, repackaged video in order to make the American military look bad. I think if he had released it in it's uncut form it would have prevented his opponents from writing it off, and actually allowed some discussion of the real issues that it showed off. P.S. The guy who leaked all this stuff was living not 100 yards from me while I was in Quantico this summer. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 12:49pm
|
Pariells-Thank you.
Transparency is an overused term, like profiling. There are complex operations in running a government as massive as the US's, and sometimes those operations need to remain out of the public view. I think that profiles on the leaders of other governments, and sensitive material need to remain that way. Transparency should apply to motives-the government should be up front with its mission statements, goals, and methods. But there are certainly some aspects that should remain hidden, for painfully obvious reasons.
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 1:05pm
|
I love the number of people who don't spell your username correctly, Pariel.
------------- 
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 1:08pm
Oh frig, no kidding. Remember the 'collateral murder' conversation we had here, and how the character of that conversation shifted a bit once the full video began to be discussed? ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 1:27pm
Has anyone noticed how the wikileaks guy . . .  . . . looks like he might be Niel Patrick Harris evil twin? ------------- 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 2:43pm
Fixed. It would sure explain the rape accusations. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 2:56pm
|
Niel Patrick Harris is gay? Well I feel just like an idiot.
It gives me the LOLs. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=1&ref=global-home - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=1&ref=global-home Also LOLs. Ahmedalkfdjsflkah thinks that the documents are supposed to make him feel insecure. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 10:38pm
No, I'm not a fan of some doucheface who puts servicemen and women from the US and our allies in needless danger because he thinks releasing classified intel, of no wrongdoing, is a good idea.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 2:38am
| Yeah, because the US needs another person deleting incriminating records. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 2:49am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 4:17am
| And honestly, this is an all or nothing game. If Wikileaks chose which cables were scummy enough to warrant being public knowledge, people would be angry about their editing of the content to their own tastes. Exactly what people took issue with during the gunner video. This way the info is just gradually coming out alltogether. So you may disagree with the effects, if we want some info, we get all the info. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 5:42am
=/=
Who, honestly, does it help to know that King Abdullah wants us to attack Iran? How does that increase security, or increase the worlds trust in us, or help us keep an ally, by releasing private info such as that? Or that, and I quote, "Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi travels with a 'voluptuous blonde' Ukrainian nurse." -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 8:02am
|
What I find funny about this whole thing is the way the NYT jumped in with both feet, when the last episode of "leaked" documents about climategate they used this excuse not to cover it...
"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here." http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/private-climate-conversations-on-display/ - Andrew Revkin
But, THESE documents are different...
oh wait.
media hypocrisy on display, time after time. Guess global warming fraud is more important than US diplomatic fraud. ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:27am
They used that reasoning not to post the letters - which they were worried about being sued about - directly on their website. They linked to the letters, which were posted on another website. The situation still had coverage. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:20pm
|
posted for whales amusement...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/cablegate_obamas_katrina_times.html - http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/cablegate_obamas_katrina_times.html ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:26pm
|
WikiLeaks has another document release coming, this time the target is a U.S. bank, pharmaceutical companies, and the Russian government. Apparently the internal releases for the bank are quite "Enron-like."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS68S20101129 - Link. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:29pm
Are we talking about the personal information of customers of the bank? ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:31pm
I mean, I don't know, as nothing has been released yet, but it doesn't seem that way. It reads like the memos are internal messages within the upper management of the company about the decisions the company is making and why. I don't think much at that level is going to have Mr. Carl T. Sniper's checking account number or SSN.
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:33pm
It tickles me to note that American Thinker chose not to mention that the cables span from 2006-2009, and that the revelation of U.S. diplomacy will equally affect perceptions of Bush's government as it does Obama's. ...something or other about political balance in the news? ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:34pm
|
BIAS OF OMISSION!!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:36pm
|
personally, from what I have read, I don't see the big whoop about the latest "leaks".
Clearly Obama can't control the flow of information in the government, and they manipulate others for gain...
But, where is the smoking gun?
I haven't seen it. It just makes the administration look inept, which we already knew. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:38pm
It reveals some of the internal workings of both this government and of Bush's. It also exposes some of the quieter discourse going on between states, the backroom discussions on some of the bigger problems. Only some of the cables have as of yet been released, however. Much more is coming, and I predict that WikiLeaks will have picked some of the 'best' to save for last. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:41pm
|
But, it isn't anything new... We all realize that people are more candid when they think the other person won't see...
Nothing shocking about that at all. The way the denial of service attacks are going on from the US to the site make me more curious that there must be something really damaging for the US to go to that much effort.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-hit-by-powerful-cyber-attack/ - http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-hit-by-powerful-cyber-attack/ ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:44pm
The current disbursed talking point - especially since the last batch dealing with the torture issue - seems to be to blame the whole thing on Obama for not being able to control government employees.
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 12:49pm
Here's the hideous irony of it- the reason Manning was able to get access to all this info is because of the post-9/11 focus on information sharing amongst intelligence agencies that had previously been very separated from each other. Oops. I remain convinced that some information will come out that is rather damaging- but at the same time, every country realizes that its own diplomats talk in much the same way in their own confidential correspondence. The damage caused will result from very specific communications and issues, not the leak in any general sense, nor the tone of the content. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 1:10pm
|
So now we have a bunch of truth out there instead of all the lies... Wow, we are in trouble.
Kind of like the lame duck congress who are now going to pass stuff because the system is rigged.
We all know it is rigged, but when they leave a mic open, sometimes the truth gets out.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/30/senator_on_lame_duck_session_its_all_rigged.html - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/30/senator_on_lame_duck_session_its_all_rigged.html ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 9:17am
|
lol.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacymilitaryinternetwikileaks_20101201113324 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/ts_alt_afp/usdiplomacymilitaryinternetwikileaks_20101201113324
Guess it wasn't such a good idea to leak a ton of sensitive info when you have some skeletons in your closet.....doh!
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 1:46pm
| Rape allegations again? Creative. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 1:50pm
|
That was my first though as well... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 2:33pm
| http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee - Huckabee is a lunatic |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 2:50pm
|
actually... He has a point, the person who "leaked" them swore to not divulge them, as they were classified.
And in doing so the person who leaked them committed treason...
treason according to dictionary.com
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
So they should have a trial, and if convicted of Treason, then... kill em.
But, don't just cut their brake lines... have a trial, and present the evidence.
I think they should do the same to Major Hasan, as turning on the military you swore to serve, and killing your fellow military members, as an act of Jihad is by definition Treason... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 2:59pm
Under penalty of death? I don't think so. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 4:12pm
| You're off the deep end if you think this warrants the death penalty. You are beyond reason. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 4:15pm
|
IMO the person that leaked this info could reasonably be tried for treason. Might help prevent any future leaks. Not sure if the death penalty is the appropriate penalty, but a good long stint in jail seems in order. If it's not treason under the specific laws, seems like the very least it could be classified as espionage. Either way, it seems to me like a pretty serous offense. Not one anyone should get away with a slap on the wrist for. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 4:54pm
| https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States - I'd like to know what the forum thinks of this |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 7:39pm
Private Manning is not a civilian, or a newspaper. He falls under the UCMJ.
The US military is an all volunteer force. No one forced him to sign up, and if he hasn't accepted that there are consequences to his actions, well, he's probably going to eventually. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 7:42pm
|
I really don't believe Manning will get death, life in the stockade more than likely.
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 12:02am
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution would be a better reference than dictionary.com. Treason is the only criminal offence specifically outlined under the Constitution. I don't believe that Manning's actions would be considered sufficient to justify an indictment for treason; there are a variety of other federal and UCMJ charges that would suffice. The 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' is secondary, almost incidental, to his actual intent in releasing the information, which was transparency and to see the government held accountable. I certainly don't agree with his actions, but his intent - the mens rea in legal terms - was not in and of itself treasonous. He certainly doesn't deserve the death penalty. Now, Malik Nadal Hassan? I wouldn't have any objection to a treason charge getting tacked onto the many counts of murder in that one. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 12:07am
|
Brihard, you stupid Canadian. In america, every textualist conservative knows that we cite dictionary.com for every legal definition. Where else would we get legal meanings from? Enjoy living in the freedom buffer zone with your freedom scraps. I'm going to go waterboard someone. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 1:00am
| Brihard, that's treason. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 8:56am
Wow, I guess this is a generation thing. But, as a member of Gen X, I find your lack of understanding of the concept of treason to be indicative of the issues that are plaguing society today.
Relative morality is a disease, and the two posts above point out just how damaged your character and values are...
Can we all agree, that these "leaks" damaged the country by giving information to our enemies which will then be used against us in war to harm the United States?
If so, then this is an act of treason. And actions have consequences. You may not like that concept but it is a fact that many try to sidestep in our culture of relative morality.
The fact that you call me "beyond reason" when I have the law to back up my viewpoint is as rediculous as jmac when he made his comment about murder not being murder even if the law says it is...
Get a grip guys. The actions of whoever leaked this information is as bad as it gets... People will die because of it. It harms the United States.
It is treason.
and the law says the punishment for treason is death. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 10:12am
|
Except that you didn't quote law. You quoted dictionary.com. I quoted law- the Constitution, to be precise, and then you ignored me and prattled on about moral relativity and lack of character. Treason is specifically defined in a manner much more restrictive than the dictionary definition you went with. The intent with that was to avoid the profligate use of questionable indictments for treason that had existed earlier under British law and that were used by that state as a source of oppression.
If you want to make a claim to be speaking of law in this thread, maybe it would be best were you to start actually citing some. Like, for instance, 18 USC, subsection 2381, which defines treason in federal law and which, you'll note, maintains that same strict definition of treason and moreover stipulates jail time (min five years) and a hefty fine as also being punishments that can be imposed. Death is *a* punishment for treason. Not *the* punishment for treason. I guess that 'moral relativism' runs pretty deep. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 10:20am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 10:29am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 11:08am
I think this is in order:  |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 11:48am
I would agree. Pushing for the death penalty only makes the prosecution's (JAG's?) job harder. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 12:50pm
I'm just a better American than you. I'm sorry you had to find out this way, dear, but it was bound to happen some time. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 12:53pm
I'll go ahead and save this one too, for the next time a particular someone cries wolf, personal attacks.
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 4:40pm
|
I'm not sure I disagree with relative morality being a disease. I just think that Christians probably need to get outside their bubble, and take a look inside. The light should click at that point. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 7:09pm
|
I thought this guy was |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 02 December 2010 at 7:16pm
|
What the hell does "relative morality" even mean? Isn't morality, by nature, relative to certain individuals or groups of people? Stop talking nonsense, FE. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 8:46am
Julian Assange is- he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. The individual to whom FE is applying his ill-conceived notion of law is the U.S. Army private who is believed to have leaked much of the information WL has received, such as the diplomatic cables and the war diaries. That is where the allegation of treason is coming from and who FE wants to see killed. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 9:37am
|
Actually, I didn't make the assumption that the army private is responsible. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I said whoever used their clearance to steal the documents to then "leak" them should be charged with Treason, and the penalty for treason is death, or prison.
Either way, who ever took the data and gave it away should be charged with treason. If the courts find him guilty and put him to death, I have no problem with that.
That is not a "ill-conceived" notion, but how things should work.
Unless you are playing politics and pretending that we aren't at war with muslim extremists, who will use the leaked information to kill the people named, and against us in the war we are currently fighting with them...
There is no question the actions of whoever it was to give this stuff to wikileaks was treason by definition.
And relative morality is morality that changes day to day.
for example if you want me banned for how I am on this board (which many of you do). But, then you say that people should have a right to free speech, without recrimination...
Well, that is an example of relative morality. You like what one person says, so they can say it all they want... But, if you don't like what another person says, and want to limit that speech, because it is "mean"...
Relative morality is not a new concept...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Relative+Morality - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Relative+Morality
Nazi culture stated that Jews were bad and should be killed. This is an example of "relative morality" as their culture had different rules than ours, and we should be accepting of others cultures right?...
Except, killing jews is wrong, and everyone (except extremist muslims btw) agree.
But, relative morality would tell you that for Nazi's to kill Jews is OK because it is their culture, and we have to be accepting of others cultures.
So was it wrong for the British to kill the Nazi's for killing the jews?...
Now you see the absurdity of relative morality, which was brought to you from CS lewis in his book written in 1944.
http://www.amazon.com/Abolition-Man-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652942 - http://www.amazon.com/Abolition-Man-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652942
A must read. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 10:54am
Oh I'm not sure you ever added on that last part. Here, let's check the tapes:
Call me crazy (And I'm sure you will) but this, to me, is a positive. And it is the way I choose to approach things in my life. Decisions based on adaptation. Pretty much nothing in life, in society, in culture, etc. is static. Things move, change, ebb and flow. The decision making process, and the human concept of "morality," which is a smoothie of things like societal norms, empathy, understanding of consequence, etc., thusly changes as well. A better definition of relative morality - one a sociologist would use - is situational morality.
I just actually loled. The Jonah Goldberg defense? People believe that? I love it. Classic.
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 11:08am
Fixed We wouldn't kill a traitor today unless his actions directly resulted in death or widespread attacks on us. Even so, we would probably interrogate the hell out of the guy and put him in prison instead of killing him. That wouldn't have been the case 200 years ago.
According to your beliefs and perhaps those that raised you, your political party, and so forth. I bet there's a guy across the street and a large population of the same mind that thinks they're all heroes. I'm sure there are those who say to torture him, and those who say "let's waterboard him, I wouldn't call that torture." We're getting into relative morality here, I'll cover it more thoroughly later in this reply.
I'm not aware of everything in the leaked documents, but what parts of it can really threaten us in a way that we aren't threatened by already? I scanned through as much as I could and I can best sum it up as someone saying "Jack and Jill are having a bad marriage.", when everybody already knew. I wouldn't put it past any of the stated people to behave in the described manners. This just puts our long suspected ideas out in the open. Maybe I'm missing something. Aside from scuffing diplomatic relations between some countries, what damage have these leaks done?
No, it's that different cultures or belief systems have different ideas as to what morality is. We have different ideas of what is good and bad. There's no changing that. If I raised a kid to think eating creamy peanut butter is bad and eating crunchy pb is good, and you do the opposite with yours; good and bad have opposite meanings to the kids in that regard. The morality between the two parties is not consistent. This isn't all or nothing either (as you often like to put things). Though the example idea of good and bad is opposite, I'm not implying that they're completely different. Humans generally agree on the rules. We differ on the punishments.
I can't believe you still don't get it. When we talk about free speech, we mean under the law. Not Tippmann Forum law, US Government law. Legal free speech is the idea that we can say damn near anything without punishment by the US government. Nobody says we should be able to say whatever we want on the Tippmann forum. This is a public club of a private organization. The club and organization can determine what limits we have on speech here. It's the same reason you can kick someone out of your house for insulting you. He has every right to say certain things under the law, but you have the right to kick him out of your house for saying those things. We try to have entertaining discussions on here. It's really tedious to address posts like yours, and many of the political things you write completely change the direction of some threads and draw all attention to you. The population of this forum may call that spamming. If, under Tippmann forum rules that's ground for an IP ban, it doesn't conflict with free speech (US law) to kick you out. We have the right of association taking care of that.
Kind of. To person B it's not mean, to Person A it is. A has been raised to find a statement offensive, and B not. It's completely independent of the idea of wanting to limit speech. If A believes that B's offensive speech should be limited, that's another difference in the moralities of the people.
That's the most accurate thing you've said regarding relative morality so far.
Relative morality doesn't dictate acceptance, it merely recognizes the phenomenon of different moralities among different cultures. Consistent with previous posts of yours, you're slapping a belief system onto ideas that don't necessarily encompass those beliefs.
Again, no. Relative morality only recognizes that different cultures have different concepts of good and bad. Whether people want to tolerate the difference is an entirely separate idea.
You're turning this into black and white.
A previous point bears repeating: Humans generally agree on the rules. We differ on the punishments. When people talk of tolerating relative morality, we usually mean to accept the differences that don't result in damage to other people. A big part of that is recognizing that your beliefs aren't the ones that everyone has to be following. The US deals with relative morality in its laws. Each government can adjust to the morality of the voting population. To have a representative government, this MUST happen. To not consider relative morality in law is to prescribe a certain consequence to each action and to never let it be discussed or to be changed. That means the law has to be dictated. We don't usually like that sort of thing, and it often leads to disaster. On a personal level, relative morality is simply recognizing that the people around you have different beliefs. Whether you want to tolerate that is another issue. The threshold of difference between your moralities also need to be considered. Frankly, you don't even handle minor differences well. ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 11:30am
|
Who here has a relative that was executed for treason in the United States?
I bet, no one... Except me.
John Brown was my grandmothers, grandfather. I have attended many Brown family reunions in my life.
So, when I hear treason, I immediately think death.
Relative morality is the opposite of "all men were Created equal", as in the constitution we ALL have freedom not from man, but given to us from our Creator.
There is right and wrong, that is constant throughout time, it doesn't vary, or change no matter how much time you throw at it.
As to what was leaked that is a problem, well the earlier leaks included the people that were helping us with info from the taliban. Those people's names were released putting the people and families in severe danger, and clearly an act of treason. I haven't seen anything yet that is to that level of the new releases. but, I haven't looked at the raw material at all, only news stories.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 11:54am
Found your problem. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 12:59pm
Some of us, when discussing law, look up what the actual laws are... Others look back to an anecdote from five generations ago. See the flaw in your methodology? If you're going to say 'The law says'... Um... Well, look up the actual law. You might learn a bit from why the U.S. constitution restricts the use of the Treason charge as much as it does.
Some of us don't believe in a creator and have strong concepts of right and wrong anyway. Morality is not dependent on some deity figure. I don't need some fictional figure to tell me that all people are equal- I grant that as a given regardless. And which of the two of us is it again who claims that an entire group of people (Muslims) ought to be subject to extra screening at the airport simply by virtue of being Muslim? Odd, that. 
Generally speaking, correct, with a few minor exceptions... Slavery Blacks not being allowed to vote People who don't own property not being allowed to vote Racial discrimination Gender discrimination Women working Women voting Women able to exit a marriage Criminalization of homosexuality Execution for minor property offences Execution of children Spousal immunity from rape charges Arbitrary arrest and detention by the state Prohibition of alcohol Torture of criminal suspects Interrogating criminal suspects before they were read their rights Arranged marriages Child labour Beating your wife Execution of the mentally disabled Rape as a weapon of war Strategic bombing of civilian cities in war The formal class system Wars of aggression State religions Conscription for expeditionary military operations Biological warfare Prohibiting gays from serving in the military Chemical warfare Nuclear warfare Incarcerating citizens who happen to be of the same ethnicity as a nation we're at war with Women as possessions of their husbands Summary execution of captured enemy forces Using police to suppress unions Using the military for law enforcement Burning witches (or anyone who weighs the same as a duck) Mutilation of captured enemy forces Forceful expulsion of aboriginal populations Lynch mobs/posses Interracial marriage ...But yeah, other than those and maybe a couple other little things, pretty much everything else has stayed largely the same in terms of right and wrong. Clearly there's no room in society for positive changes. or for changing social mores. Now, I can predict that you will argue that some of these things have always been wrong and that it took society time to catch up with them and to fix them. On other things, you and I will likely disagree about whether something is 'wrong' or not, or to what degree it is. Resorting to your concept of a creator I'm sure you'll claim vicarious authority on the issue and deem it a case closed, but plainly the historical record shows that concepts of right and wrong have changed over time (largely in response that that nefarious concept attributed to such figures as J.S. Mill and referred to in political philosophy as Liberalism). But your position is predicated on absolute notions of right and wrong as having always existed and will always exist.
I would have figured the U.S. justice department is probably a better authority on what constitutes treason and what doesn't. You've made your simplistic awareness of the law manifest on many occasions- what has often been 'clear' to you has on several occasions been shown to be demonstrably false, most recently in this thread when you said 'the punishment for treason is death' and then quietly amended it the next time (without at all acknowledging your error) after I pointed out that no, in fact, the law does not say that exclusively.
I'm glad you twice mentioned this, actually. It used to be that when one's country was at war, a man would be expected to join up and serve in his nation's defence, or to otherwise contribute to necessary wartime services or industry. It would appear that since the generation of my grandparents and your parents it's no longer expected that those individuals who will cheerlead a war effort will necessarily step up and do something about it themselves, as long as they can support (loudly and patriotically enough) those who do. But I guess 'Ask what you can do for your country' (especially in such a time of need) is just such a... liberal notion. But yeah, since you're back onto the 'America's at war!!!' thing, and just in case you should decide to ponder the threat to your nation any further let me just leave this here. http://www.nationalguard.com/car - http://www.nationalguard.com/car
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 1:04pm
And at the time of this phrase being created, "Men" was considered white people who owned land. Thanks to "moral relativism" that was changed throughout the history of the country.
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 2:25pm
|
This is a really great thread. Now if only FE would actually internalize a small portion of it, we might be on our way to a sane T&O in the future. OK, I guess that's a stretch. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 4:58pm
| And this debate is exactly why people like FE are the ones who shriek "flip flopper!" any time a politician changes their opinion based on new information. Sticking to your guns in the face of contradictory evidence is stupid, updating your opinions and educating yourself is smart. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 03 December 2010 at 10:58pm
|
Well how you feel about McCain's flip flop on DADT?
------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 04 December 2010 at 1:17am
FE, you used to, and still on the occasion infuriate me. More recently though, and especially this post by itself, oh how hard I laughed. I think it's going to be my new sig. Edit: Awwe :( It's too long.
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 December 2010 at 2:45am
| The perpetual one-upper. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 04 December 2010 at 11:47am
HE WAS LIKE A BROTHER TO ME!!!!!! ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 04 December 2010 at 12:37pm
Clearly you are an atheist. Why don't you believe in God and the Bible anymore? -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 04 December 2010 at 4:42pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 04 December 2010 at 5:08pm
If you are going to try and be a pain in the ass about thing like this, try picking a politician that FE likes. Lots of Republicans dislike McCain... It was a nice try I guess though... ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 05 December 2010 at 12:44am
Is it bad that I don't disagree with this? Remember that although you may disagree with what has been said you have an obligation to remember that better men than you and me have died defending his right to say it. Big girls don't cry. |