Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
9 Comments
siftbotsays...The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by radx.
gwiz665says...I like that the moderator really bites both parts. Very well done.
MaxWildersays...What is the difference between "whistle blowers" and WikiLeaks???
Each one makes claims and provides what evidence they have available, as a last resort because normal channels aren't working.
It blows my mind that these people are talking like they are different things. Wikileaks just gives whistle blowers a platform to be heard.
mgittlesays...>> ^MaxWilder:
What is the difference between "whistle blowers" and WikiLeaks???
Each one makes claims and provides what evidence they have available, as a last resort because normal channels aren't working.
It blows my mind that these people are talking like they are different things. Wikileaks just gives whistle blowers a platform to be heard.
They are different things. There is a legal difference. If you leak classified documents in the US, that is a punishable offense because you probably signed some contract saying you wouldn't leak things in order to be able to get a classified clearance of some kind. If you report to others information that has been leaked by a whistleblower, that falls under freedom of the press and is not punishable by law.
That's why the US gov't is trying to hard to find evidence that Julian Assange coerced Bradley Manning into leaking classified information...to connect Assange to a crime. You say "Wikileaks just gives whistleblowers a platform"...yeah, so do all sorts of news organizations. Trade any news source with "Wikileaks"...try your sentence out with "New York Times", for example.
Don't ask a rhetorical question when you don't already know the answer.
GenjiKilpatricksays...Man, The United States is caught red handed doing the most awful stuff and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
So thaaaaat's what it's like to be a WASP.
MaxWildersays...>> ^mgittle:
>> ^MaxWilder:
What is the difference between "whistle blowers" and WikiLeaks???
Each one makes claims and provides what evidence they have available, as a last resort because normal channels aren't working.
It blows my mind that these people are talking like they are different things. Wikileaks just gives whistle blowers a platform to be heard.
They are different things. There is a legal difference. If you leak classified documents in the US, that is a punishable offense because you probably signed some contract saying you wouldn't leak things in order to be able to get a classified clearance of some kind. If you report to others information that has been leaked by a whistleblower, that falls under freedom of the press and is not punishable by law.
That's why the US gov't is trying to hard to find evidence that Julian Assange coerced Bradley Manning into leaking classified information...to connect Assange to a crime. You say "Wikileaks just gives whistleblowers a platform"...yeah, so do all sorts of news organizations. Trade any news source with "Wikileaks"...try your sentence out with "New York Times", for example.
Don't ask a rhetorical question when you don't already know the answer.
Sorry, I didn't make my baffled outburst clear. The assholes claiming that WikiLeaks is a bad thing both support whistle blowers as a necessary measure when all normal channels to right a wrong have been attempted.
Is it not patently obvious to anybody that WikiLeaks is the worlds biggest supporter of whistle blowers? Is it not further patently obvious that shutting down WikiLeaks would make it harder for whistle blowers to get the attention they need? Therefor how could any sane person support one and not the other? (Rhetorical question. Answer: they can't. They are hypocrites and liars.)
Edit: I hasten to add that I have no problem with an open investigation to confirm that Assange was not colluding with those who are breaking the law in gathering the information. That is something that could happen to any news organization, and is fairly reasonable when the release is as significant as those diplomatic cables. But the public harassment is absurd.
geo321says...*quality
siftbotsays...Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by geo321.
mgittlesays...@MaxWilder Ahh, I see what you were trying to say. Yes, I also didn't understand that exactly, but it was a debate and sometimes people are forced to debate things they don't believe in 100%. I don't know.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.