So should we let people walk into the white house with bombs? You know, innocent until proven guilty, and all that. Theres no guarantee they will blow it up, right? That is what security is, stopping something before it becomes a problem.
I think that the bombs would indicate intent and would be enough to get a guilty verdict. But hey, dont let that get in the way of you're argument.
And I suppose there is no intent in smuggling out secret documents? Do you think anyone caught wouldn't get a guilty verdict? But hey, dont let that get in the way of your argument
You're comparing releasing documents to walking a bomb through the White House, I hope it's not just me who see's the lunacy in that. Oh no! I used the wrong "your", oh woe is me...
Treason? How is an Australian citizen operating in Sweden, treason? See, this is the problem with many of my countrymen. You think the world belongs to us, and we can just get anyone or anything we want, or we find is a nuisance. Assange is not an American, and thus is not subject to our laws.Besides that there is the fact that he hasn't broken any of our laws.So there is nothing you can do to him. You can cry all you want that he wants to sell our top secret plans to Bin Laden. But i can say the same about you, and we both have the same exact amount of evidence.
Somebody would get done for treason if caught smuggling out those documents. I was using the 2 as a comparison with security and your innocent until proven guilty theory. Would they let someone walk out with those documents? Hell no, because of the risk. Would they let someone walk into the white house with a bomb? Nope, because of the risk. Security, they stop it before it happens.
Yes, and the thing with Wikileaks is that it's already happened. Wikileaks disseminates the information, but it is not responsible for the initial leaking. Hence why someone (I forget who) said the fault lies with the government for letting it happen in the first place.
Yes, here i agree with you. And i even said it before, that the government officials who release these documents are breaking their oath of office. They should be prosecuted according to the crime they have committed. Wikileaks, and Assange, however, are totally innocent and have no oath to the American government.
This is basically what I said here: But hey, don't reply to things that answer your questions msg - it's not like we've got anything else to do than post the same thing over and over. The point is, if it didn't go up on Wikileaks it'd go up somewhere else. Should we shut down the internet and all news outlets for fear of having secret documents published?
there are more than just the military "secret documents" there are personal secrets too. I'm not talking johnny is gay and is the vice president, but bank accounts, SSN numbers and credit card tabs. If my or other people's personal information about money is about to be shown to the public, shut it down (hopefully it won't come to that). but. Wikileaks has past information, not present or future. I agree there is a tradeoff between public knowledge and security, but sometimes public knowledge can be security. If the people already know about past actions, how can bad countries have that leverage?
They need some way to tell the world that the government is doing a great job so you should totally vote for us, guys!
NOOOO my neopets Theyma starve Think of the Facebookians. We'll suddenly have an influx of idiots running on the streets instead of in their living rooms. Also, Farmville.
You can shut down news outlets and such but not the internet cause no one can own it and yet people try so hard to pretend they do all to feel better about themselves
Well, if there's really a need for that, can't the government just blanket order all the ISPs? If every single government sees fit to follow such insanity, then there really will be no internet.
god i hate governments so much. money makes the world spin and the world is so crooked its turning sideways.