Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24030
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Mo » 05 Sep 2012, 15:03

I'm for death taxes because when you tax something, you get less of it. Opponents of death taxes are objectively pro-death.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18359
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 Sep 2012, 15:07

Mo wrote:I'm for death taxes because when you tax something, you get less of it. Opponents of death taxes are objectively pro-death.
I'm pretty sure you could have (literally) sold that line to some speaker at the Democratic convention.

User avatar
GinSlinger
Posts: 3624
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:49
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by GinSlinger » 05 Sep 2012, 15:12

I'm probably either treading upon ground already trod, or dredging a deceased equine up for purposes of corporal punishment, but here goes anyway.

The Chartalists think they're made this gigantic score in pointing out that money is only money because people think it's money and that that somehow invalidates economic life. Well, the first can be true without the latter being so. I think there is some parallel with politics/the state here.

The reason that Congress, the courts, etc. don't challenge the executive is because how can they win? Let's say that Congress decides to impeach the executive for some violation under the GWOT. The Executive simply replies "not your place" largely because this has proven to be the public perception of the thing. So, Congress sends in the Capital police? Well, the executive stations the Secret Service to thwart them. Do the US Marshalls get called in? It all pretty much comes down to what do the people think should happen?

We've all seen the right turn of the DU crowd when it comes to certain aspects of Executive authority (not all, of course) and the opposite tact taken by, say, the Tea Party. Yes, those have happened, but by and large, the system is seen as legitimate. That doesn't make a Jadagul or a Jason wrong, mind you, because the power of institutions (and their "morality" which I reject applies to an institution) resides in their perceived legitimacy. And, in large part, their perceived legitimacy has nothing to do with what they do to Others, only in what they do to the large minority of their own citizens. Institutions are just manifestations of people. Some institutions respond to more democratic elements than others, but they, in and of themselves, aren't the people. They're really powerless to affect change on their own. These things we detest aren't the product of the institution itself, they're the product of people caring or not caring about what the institution does.

Now, the neo-Marxists are convinced that institutions can be shaped by small cohorts of those under their control (or classes). I'm not convinced of this. I'm more convinced that institutions largely mimic the attitudes of their majorities. Not a voter-majority, but an engaged majority. And I'm far from hopeful that a majority of the populace that can affect the institution that is the federal government actually cares (one way or another) about the actions of the institution (and I'm speaking of both Congress and the Executive) when it comes to the issues under consideration in this thread. Now, they actually do care about "the rule of law" (should I bold that to make it look like it's carved in stone?). So, as such, a Manning must be sacrificed in order to appease what the constituent body of the institutions under question are projected to stand for.

I think that we, as "libertarians," look at the world around us and think we're a bigger voice than we are. So, we think that actions should be taken based on our conceptions of the legitimate means and ends of the institutions we question. The fact of the matter is we're not. Even "allies" like the ACLU fail us. Call it purity tests or whathaveyou. All this means is that I get thoreau's outrage, but I have to shrug that it's ultimately "trying to scream the rain back in to the clouds." Similarly, I get Jadagul's and Jason's points about the operations of the institutions being essentially grounding. They are. If people want to steal, the law can't stop them. It can try to punish them, but if everyone wants to steal the law becomes powerless (if only by overload).

Anyway, on top of everything else, a lot of the things we might think were good in historical government had unsavory/illegal/unConstitutional/etc elements to them, but the fact that we embrace the good that results shows how hollow or complaints about the "rule of law" actually can be.

Anyway, back to the account book in front of me. I hope this has some meaning, as I've typed it up over the past, whoa! hour.

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6988
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Jadagul » 05 Sep 2012, 15:45

GinSlinger wrote:Similarly, I get Jadagul's and Jason's points about the operations of the institutions being essentially grounding. They are. If people want to steal, the law can't stop them. It can try to punish them, but if everyone wants to steal the law becomes powerless (if only by overload).
I like this phrasing; it might be clearer than anything I've said so far.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23564
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by JasonL » 05 Sep 2012, 15:59

Jadagul wrote:
GinSlinger wrote:Similarly, I get Jadagul's and Jason's points about the operations of the institutions being essentially grounding. They are. If people want to steal, the law can't stop them. It can try to punish them, but if everyone wants to steal the law becomes powerless (if only by overload).
I like this phrasing; it might be clearer than anything I've said so far.
Yup. It's a good pass at what I mean by "legitimacy" and "opting in" or "opting out" of institutions. I agree with the whole sentiment and was even trying to draw the same comparison between legitimizing currency and legtimizing institutions, but couldn't quite get there.

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13809
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Kolohe » 07 Sep 2012, 12:08

I really like what ginslinger said above. Like that old softy Varys said power resides where people think it resides
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13809
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Kolohe » 10 Oct 2012, 20:31

Image
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15732
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by dhex » 10 Oct 2012, 21:01

witch house arrest (for db)
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13143
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Oct 2012, 22:13

That's some bad image quality. Gaga looks uncannily like a friend of mine in that picture, who otherwise doesn't resemble her...
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18111
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by dbcooper » 12 Oct 2012, 05:59

Information kind of wants to be free.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/1 ... anonymous/
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18111
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by dbcooper » 12 Oct 2012, 06:00

dhex wrote:witch house arrest (for db)
I don't get it. :oops:
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18111
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by dbcooper » 12 Oct 2012, 06:08

Wait, is under house arrest 'cause she makes shitty madonna covers, which is like shitty house music?
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17744
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Jan 2013, 19:14

Another day, another appalling decision in favor of the omnistate's ability to ruin people's lives in pursuit of the vague value of National Security.
Prosecutors have said federal law specifically allows them to seek account information as a routine investigative tool. Specifically, the Stored Communications Act allows them to obtain certain electronic data without a search warrant or a demonstration of probable cause. The government must only show that it has a reasonable belief that the records it seeks are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

"This is essentially a reasonable suspicion standard," the court wrote.

Under the Stored Communications Act, the government can also keep sealed documents related to their investigation from the subscribers. The appeals panel concluded the subscribers had no First Amendment right to access the documents. Prosecutors submitted their rationale for seeking the Twitter information to U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan but it was kept secret and sealed also.

The court wrote that the "government's interests in maintaining secrecy of its investigation, preventing potential subjects from being tipped off, or altering behavior to thwart the government's ongoing investigation, outweighed" the subscribers' claims.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18111
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by dbcooper » 29 Apr 2013, 01:16

Woman indicted in Cuba spy case is in Sweden and out of U.S. reach

By Jim Popkin, Published: April 26

The Justice Department on Thursday announced the indictment of a former State Department employee for allegedly spying on behalf of Cuba, but it is unable to arrest her because she lives in Sweden, a country that does not extradite citizens accused of espionage.

Marta Rita Velazquez, 55, a graduate of Princeton University and Georgetown University Law School, was indicted nearly a decade ago on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Velazquez lives in Stockholm and is aware of the charges against her, the Justice Department said. But the extradition treaty between the United States and Sweden does not allow extradition for spying.

“Espionage is considered a ‘political offense’ that, therefore, falls outside the scope of Sweden’s extradition treaty,” said Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd. Swedish officials declined to comment on the announcement of the indictment.

A grand jury in Washington indicted Velazquez in 2004, but the charges remained sealed until Thursday. “Velazquez has continually remained outside the United States since 2002,” the Justice Department said, frustrating U.S. attempts to arrest her. The United States notified her that she was under suspicion in December 2011. Attempts to reach Velazquez for her response to the indictment were unsuccessful.

Law enforcement sources said the FBI first learned about Velazquez in late 2002, after the debriefings of Ana Belen Montes, a former Defense Department analyst who pleaded guilty to spying for Cuba for 17 years. Montes told investigators that she met Velazquez while they were graduate students at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and that Velazquez helped recruit her as a spy.

“Velazquez would and did foster and maintain a close personal friendship with Ana Belen Montes in order to facilitate the recruitment of Montes to serve as an agent of the Cuban Intelligence Service,” the indictment states.Velazquez once mailed Montes a letter saying, “It has been a great satisfaction for me to have had you as a friend and comrade. . . . I hope our relationship continues outside the academic sphere.”

According to the indictment, Velazquez, who was born in Puerto Rico, introduced Montes to a Cuban intelligence officer in New York, escorted her on a clandestine trip to Cuba for “operational training” and helped her obtain employment with the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Montes would go on to lead a distinguished career at DIA as a top Cuban analyst, winning awards, briefing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and helping to soften U.S. policy toward Cuba, all while reporting reams of classified information back to Havana. Montes, the subject of a cover story in Sunday’s Washington Post Magazine, was described by her lead debriefer as “one of the most damaging spies in U.S. history.”

Velazquez went on to work for the U.S. government, too, first at the Transportation Department and then for 13 years as a legal officer with the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development. During her tenure with USAID, Velazquez held a top secret security clearance and was posted to U.S. embassies in Nicaragua and Guatemala. She exchanged encrypted messages with Cuban operatives while at USAID, the indictment states, and traveled to Panama for an operational meeting. She resigned from USAID in June 2002, after Montes’s arrest but months before Montes pleaded guilty to espionage and began cooperating with law enforcement officials.

Like Montes, Velazquez received training in Cuba on how to receive coded instructions from Havana on shortwave radio, how to fake her way through gov­ernment-administered polygraph examinations, and how to travel incognito to Cuba using fake passports and disguises, the indictment states.

Popkin is a writer living in Washington.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17744
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Hugh Akston » 30 Jul 2013, 13:24

"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27435
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by thoreau » 30 Jul 2013, 13:33

[Washington Mindset]WTF? Dude leaked information to the American People. That's absolutely aiding the enemy![/Washington Mindset]
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13143
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Eric the .5b » 30 Jul 2013, 18:13

thoreau wrote:
[Washington Mindset]WTF? Dude leaked information to the American People. That's absolutely aiding the enemy![/Washington Mindset]
Mind, he was ruled guilty on the espionage charges, which isn't good, either.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18359
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 30 Jul 2013, 18:55

Eric the .5b wrote:
thoreau wrote:
[Washington Mindset]WTF? Dude leaked information to the American People. That's absolutely aiding the enemy![/Washington Mindset]
Mind, he was ruled guilty on the espionage charges, which isn't good, either.
There was absolutely zero chance he was going to walk.

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7871
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Taktix® » 30 Jul 2013, 20:24

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:
thoreau wrote:
[Washington Mindset]WTF? Dude leaked information to the American People. That's absolutely aiding the enemy![/Washington Mindset]
Mind, he was ruled guilty on the espionage charges, which isn't good, either.
There was absolutely zero chance he was going to walk.
Yep, from what I read today (and didn't know before today) was that he was convicted on charges he plead guilty to in the first place. Now I'm seeing this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

It's one thing for the military to police itself and quite another to go after Assange.We can quibble over what qualifies as a news outlet, but going after Assange is like going after Glenn Greenwald for the Snowden leaks - a direct assault on freedom of the press.

I mean, fuck, I'm an American citizen with a (very) sparsely-read blog. If I published a leak, would I be a conspirator?
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13809
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Kolohe » 30 Jul 2013, 20:29

1) passive voice does a bit a lifting in that article
2) 'essentially' saying something is not the same as saying something, especially when parsed by someone with a difference of opinion with the original communicator.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Kwix
Posts: 1624
Joined: 17 May 2010, 22:07
Location: Great White North

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Kwix » 30 Jul 2013, 20:50

Taktix® wrote:I mean, fuck, I'm an American citizen with a (very) sparsely-read blog. If I published a leak, would I be a conspirator?
As of right now, yes says Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
"People are sometimes the answer, but they are ALWAYS the problem." -- Ellie
"pedialyte is like planned parenthood for hangovers. it costs you a bit, but it makes your little problem go away until the next time you drink too much."-- dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Jennifer » 30 Jul 2013, 20:53

It's one thing for the military to police itself and quite another to go after Assange.We can quibble over what qualifies as a news outlet, but going after Assange is like going after Glenn Greenwald for the Snowden leaks - a direct assault on freedom of the press.


I mean, fuck, I'm an American citizen with a (very) sparsely-read blog. If I published a leak, would I be a conspirator?
Assange isn't even a US citizen. Maybe a better question would be, can Russia deem you a conspirator if, on your blog, you published secrets a Russian soldier leaked to you? After all, you owe about as much loyalty to Russia as Assange owes to the US.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3003
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Number 6 » 30 Jul 2013, 22:18

Jennifer wrote:
It's one thing for the military to police itself and quite another to go after Assange.We can quibble over what qualifies as a news outlet, but going after Assange is like going after Glenn Greenwald for the Snowden leaks - a direct assault on freedom of the press.


I mean, fuck, I'm an American citizen with a (very) sparsely-read blog. If I published a leak, would I be a conspirator?
Assange isn't even a US citizen. Maybe a better question would be, can Russia deem you a conspirator if, on your blog, you published secrets a Russian soldier leaked to you? After all, you owe about as much loyalty to Russia as Assange owes to the US.
No, no no. You see, Jennifer, everyone in the world owes loyalty to the U.S. Because, Jennifer, we're the United States of America. The best, freest. most beneficent country in history. We can do no wrong. Which means that all we do is right. Which means that anyone who doesn't love us, and what we do, is evil.


You don't want to be evil, do you Jennifer?
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18359
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 30 Jul 2013, 23:05

Number 6 wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
It's one thing for the military to police itself and quite another to go after Assange.We can quibble over what qualifies as a news outlet, but going after Assange is like going after Glenn Greenwald for the Snowden leaks - a direct assault on freedom of the press.


I mean, fuck, I'm an American citizen with a (very) sparsely-read blog. If I published a leak, would I be a conspirator?
Assange isn't even a US citizen. Maybe a better question would be, can Russia deem you a conspirator if, on your blog, you published secrets a Russian soldier leaked to you? After all, you owe about as much loyalty to Russia as Assange owes to the US.
No, no no. You see, Jennifer, everyone in the world owes loyalty to the U.S. Because, Jennifer, we're the United States of America. The best, freest. most beneficent country in history. We can do no wrong. Which means that all we do is right. Which means that anyone who doesn't love us, and what we do, is evil.


You don't want to be evil, do you Jennifer?

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3003
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: Wikileaks - Diplomatic Cables Edition

Post by Number 6 » 30 Jul 2013, 23:28

You know, I almost ended that with "America...Fuck Yeah!"
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests