You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #39: Neither is a shadow government and a police state accurate. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Neither is a shadow government and a police state accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Unintended consequences with Classified Information..Example. Pavulon  Dec-12-10 04:08 PM   #0 
  - "Could be" is not much of an argument.  Arctic Dave   Dec-12-10 04:16 PM   #1 
  - Well bradley did not steal a cable where the person named here  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 04:19 PM   #3 
     - Why can't they have uranium?  Arctic Dave   Dec-12-10 05:18 PM   #16 
        - They are signators of the NPR. If they are not concerned  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:33 PM   #22 
           - No dodge, why should I care if they have uranium.  Arctic Dave   Dec-12-10 07:13 PM   #99 
              - SO that is worth their life? Again, what is the benefit to dumping this content?(nt)  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:16 PM   #102 
                 - You only assume it is worth their life.  Arctic Dave   Dec-12-10 07:25 PM   #110 
                    - Once more, why put this in the clear? not iraq war, not war crimes..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:27 PM   #112 
  - Amazing! I tried to rec this post and the count stays at 0.  Hangingon   Dec-12-10 04:18 PM   #2 
  - My position on this is about as popular as a fart in church here..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 04:42 PM   #6 
  - Pull the tape from what date. What location? What time?  NightWatcher   Dec-12-10 04:29 PM   #4 
  - US Embassy Rangoon.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 04:36 PM   #5 
     - So the government is going to identify, locate and kill every citizen that had contact?  NightWatcher   Dec-12-10 04:51 PM   #7 
        - Myanmar certainly would.  Ikonoklast   Dec-12-10 04:55 PM   #8 
        - Only the ones selling Uranium from undecleared nuclear programs..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 04:56 PM   #9 
  - Fuck that shit.  asdjrocky   Dec-12-10 04:57 PM   #10 
  - Can you give me one reason this information should be in the clear?  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:01 PM   #11 
     - There is only one reason needed.  asdjrocky   Dec-12-10 05:09 PM   #12 
        - Yeah, dead people tend to be worth worrying about. The truth  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:13 PM   #15 
           - I don't play this game.  asdjrocky   Dec-12-10 05:18 PM   #17 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-12-10 05:27 PM   #19 
              - And yet you continue to try and play.  asdjrocky   Dec-12-10 05:30 PM   #20 
              - It was real people with Valerie Plame too, but did that stop  shraby   Dec-12-10 05:31 PM   #21 
                 - Stop deflecting. This is not about that. It is a simple question you people refuse to answer  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:34 PM   #24 
                    - Wikileaks is not just about Iraq and Afghanistan  elias49   Dec-12-10 07:46 PM   #116 
                       - Because when enriched it destroys cities.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:58 PM   #122 
           - Don't waste your time...  Cid_B   Dec-12-10 06:18 PM   #79 
  - The leaks are irresponsible.  jaxx   Dec-12-10 05:09 PM   #13 
  - Government secrets are more irresponsible. I don't like shadow governments or police states. nt  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:38 PM   #29 
     - No government can do it's business under the lights.  jaxx   Dec-12-10 05:40 PM   #30 
        - Not what the founders thought.  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:43 PM   #33 
           - Neither is a shadow government and a police state accurate.  jaxx   Dec-12-10 05:48 PM   #39 
           - I disagree. We are well into police state territory with the passage of the Patriot Act.  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:51 PM   #44 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-12-10 05:49 PM   #40 
              - Seems Thomas Jefferson saw it my way. nt  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:52 PM   #46 
              - History is not your friend here. Your position is childish and not used by any  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:55 PM   #50 
                 - Daniel Ellsberg agrees with my childish world view and the Supreme Court agreed with him.  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:07 PM   #63 
                    - Well you have an Army of one. Supreme case was related to press publication  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:11 PM   #70 
                       - I'm gonna go with Ellsberg on this. Here's a quote from him from 2008:  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:18 PM   #80 
                          - Thanks for the link. Again how does posting this persons name in public  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:20 PM   #83 
                             - I'm standing on the quote from Ellsberg and I've said your demands to have your question...  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:28 PM   #90 
              - Millennia. Work on your spelling.  Odin2005   Dec-12-10 06:01 PM   #56 
                 - Keep working on the argument that justifies releasing this, would love to see one.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:04 PM   #59 
  - You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs  GliderGuider   Dec-12-10 05:12 PM   #14 
  - Is this a broken egg?  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:18 PM   #18 
  - Nobody has revealed launch codes. You're being hysterical.  GliderGuider   Dec-12-10 05:33 PM   #23 
  - +1000 nt  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:35 PM   #25 
  - Feel free to explain how this being in the clear accomplishes any clear goal you have  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:38 PM   #28 
     - I'm really not obligated to respond to your incessant demands that people answer your question.  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:40 PM   #31 
     - Not obligated but it would be interesting to see a reasonable argument as to why  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:43 PM   #35 
        - Nope. Don't recall a single time in my life I ever responded to a raging authoritarian whose sole  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:46 PM   #38 
           - You mistake rage for clear rational thinking. There are arguments to be made to support this  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:53 PM   #49 
              - I don't find your raging authoritarian postings to be conducive to...  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 05:58 PM   #53 
                 - You dont get it. Unlike the media approach and the gaggle here, it is NOT about assange  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:01 PM   #57 
                    - There is nothing whatsoever "random" about the release.  GliderGuider   Dec-12-10 06:09 PM   #66 
                    - By fucking morons who want click through money.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:13 PM   #72 
                    - I get it just fine. People prone to rage are always in search of some reason to spew it.  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:10 PM   #67 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-12-10 06:14 PM   #75 
                          - It's my experience that people who rage will either deny they are raging or try to justify it. nt  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:20 PM   #82 
                             - Stop the ad-hom, its silly. rational would be to put me on ignore or give a real answer..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:22 PM   #84 
                                - I do notice you seem to use a lot of online screaming and demanding others answer you...  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:25 PM   #88 
                                   - all this chatter and still no content. Nothing..(nt)  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:33 PM   #93 
     - No criminal activity? Say WHAT?  elias49   Dec-12-10 07:52 PM   #118 
  - I intentionally did not post anything graphic. How the FUCK does someone in Rangoon  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:36 PM   #26 
  - So you would be okay with the leaks if they were about war crimes or banking?  Evoman   Dec-12-10 05:51 PM   #43 
     - Banks no problem. That is not classified information..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:57 PM   #51 
        - Again, the dump is not "random". That is a RW, authoritarian meme.  GliderGuider   Dec-12-10 06:11 PM   #69 
        - memes come from media, read original sources. Manning explained it  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:16 PM   #77 
        - What???!!!??? Someone on DU is pushing a RW, authoritarian meme! Say it ain't so! nt  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:22 PM   #86 
        - Banks have no protection against corporate theft?  elias49   Dec-12-10 07:57 PM   #120 
           - Not the 10 10 form manning signed. It is not a felony to disclose a bank will not lend to blacks  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 08:05 PM   #125 
              - Ah, so MANNING signed a '1010' form  elias49   Dec-12-10 08:55 PM   #130 
              - The diplomaticarrangement with McLumpy's old wife and her diplomatic project to use of aircraft to  lonestarnot   Dec-12-10 09:05 PM   #131 
                 - I have heard that meme, but doubt anything about this myanmar cable  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 09:41 PM   #134 
                    - Of course it's a meme to those allergic to the truth.  lonestarnot   Dec-12-10 09:54 PM   #136 
                       - Hey, its all faith based thinking. If hero julian  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 09:55 PM   #137 
  - And you seem to not give a single shit about it  pipoman   Dec-12-10 05:43 PM   #34 
  - Nice snuff porn  RetroLounge   Dec-12-10 06:13 PM   #73 
     - Read the post . Its text, no picture. You are on autopilot.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:18 PM   #78 
  - As long as those eggs aren't yours...  Cid_B   Dec-12-10 06:56 PM   #96 
     - I can make a more nuanced argument, but this thread hardly seems like the place for that.  GliderGuider   Dec-12-10 10:13 PM   #138 
  - So essentially  the redcoat   Dec-12-10 05:36 PM   #27 
  - I have yet to hear one cohesive argument on why this cable should be in the clear. not one  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:42 PM   #32 
     - First, let's be honest about one thing.  the redcoat   Dec-12-10 07:34 PM   #113 
        - Thanks,  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:57 PM   #121 
           - An interesting compromise  the redcoat   Dec-12-10 08:26 PM   #127 
              - I see much more use for the war leaks  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 09:38 PM   #132 
  - Your panties are really in a knot over this, eh? Good!  Hassin Bin Sober   Dec-12-10 05:44 PM   #36 
  - Not one of you guys has made an argument on why something like this needs to be in the clear  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:50 PM   #42 
  - delete  Hassin Bin Sober   Dec-12-10 05:44 PM   #37 
  - Who has been killed for a leak, yet? You have failed to give an actual  tekisui   Dec-12-10 05:50 PM   #41 
  - Yeah, I dont have access to that information, manning did not steal it. I posted a clear example  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:52 PM   #45 
  - The person wasn't named. It isn't a death sentence.  tekisui   Dec-12-10 05:53 PM   #48 
  - Everyone surveils embassies.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 05:59 PM   #54 
  - .dupe  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:00 PM   #55 
  - You are speculating. Where is the link to his name?  sabrina 1   Dec-12-10 08:43 PM   #128 
     - You really think that someone dumping information on myanmar would have stopped Iraq?  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 09:39 PM   #133 
        - Information was available to the press here but they dared not  sabrina 1   Dec-13-10 02:03 AM   #139 
  - Yeah, but it could happen.  asdjrocky   Dec-12-10 05:53 PM   #47 
  - Oh PLEASE, I bet there are several people going in and out at any one time  Odin2005   Dec-12-10 05:58 PM   #52 
  - Except with a video camera pointed at the Embassy  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:03 PM   #58 
     - LOL, your nit-picking is ridiculous.  Odin2005   Dec-12-10 06:05 PM   #61 
        - So no one films embassies or the date this person passes information is not relevant (lol?)  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:09 PM   #64 
  - So what were the consequences, intended or not? You don't know?  Better Believe It   Dec-12-10 06:04 PM   #60 
  - Yeah, no one stole the follow up classified information yet.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:06 PM   #62 
     - Right. Only 2.5 million people have access to these documents.  Better Believe It   Dec-12-10 06:09 PM   #65 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-12-10 06:12 PM   #71 
     - Sure. Like you give a fuck about xxx.  Hassin Bin Sober   Dec-12-10 06:10 PM   #68 
     - xxx has value. Knowing what others are up to has value..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:18 PM   #81 
     - Who is xxx anyway? Don't know? That's because WikiLeaks and mass media didn't release the name!  Better Believe It   Dec-12-10 07:54 PM   #119 
        - They aren't trying to find out who xxx is , others may.  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 08:08 PM   #126 
  - "Myanmar is ruled by a military junta." And that is why we officially still call it "Burma."  WinkyDink   Dec-12-10 06:14 PM   #74 
  - Panties meet twist  RetroLounge   Dec-12-10 06:16 PM   #76 
  - The U.S. press published photos of the students at Tiananmen  sabrina 1   Dec-12-10 06:22 PM   #85 
  - All that text and no answer. What EXACTLY is worth disclosing that person's name  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:26 PM   #89 
  - Where is the person's name disclosed?  sabrina 1   Dec-12-10 07:22 PM   #108 
     - In the unredacted document which is stitting on a now unsecured network  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:26 PM   #111 
  - +1000 nt  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:29 PM   #91 
  - They were shopping the uranium looking for a buyer.  ipaint   Dec-12-10 06:23 PM   #87 
  - Not how I read it, was speculation. If it was legal why redact that name? They left many others..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:31 PM   #92 
  - So far you have nothing but idle speculation based on suspicion to back those claims up.  ipaint   Dec-12-10 07:05 PM   #97 
  - Guess that answer is elusive.. what is the benefit to disclosing these cables  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:14 PM   #101 
     - Who is being compromised?  ipaint   Dec-12-10 07:21 PM   #107 
        - xxxx is at a given place on a given date. That place is surveiled by  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:25 PM   #109 
           - I think it is time you got a hold of the newspapers around the  ipaint   Dec-12-10 07:35 PM   #114 
           - You guys have a really hard time with this. What is in that cable needs to be disclosed  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:37 PM   #115 
           - The date of the meeting WAS redacted. The date of the cable was not.  Luminous Animal   Dec-12-10 08:00 PM   #124 
  - From your link-  ipaint   Dec-12-10 07:10 PM   #98 
     - And this person. They deserve to die too?  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:14 PM   #100 
        - Where is the documentation that he was in danger or killed? nt  ipaint   Dec-12-10 07:17 PM   #103 
        - His name is out. The documentaion was not stolen by manning..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:19 PM   #105 
        - That comes from 2004 and rumors have been reported in the mains stream news since then.  Luminous Animal   Dec-12-10 07:58 PM   #123 
  - "Crusade" is a perfect description. nt  laughingliberal   Dec-12-10 06:34 PM   #94 
     - how so?(nt)  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 06:37 PM   #95 
  - Wow that's a pretty solid example man...  walldude   Dec-12-10 07:18 PM   #104 
  - So why dont you explain to me the value of publishing a document like this one?  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 07:21 PM   #106 
  - It shows that the U.S. broke the law by shipping uranium on a commercial airline.  Luminous Animal   Dec-12-10 07:48 PM   #117 
  - ...far outweighed by the consequences of secrecy  bhikkhu   Dec-12-10 08:54 PM   #129 
  - Then you need to get your ass elected..  Pavulon   Dec-12-10 09:43 PM   #135 
     - At least you're showing your true colors and purpose now.  Democracyinkind   Dec-13-10 04:56 AM   #141 
  - unrecd  knotwurstforware   Dec-13-10 03:16 AM   #140 
  - Even the DoD says you're being hysterical  GliderGuider   Dec-13-10 05:23 AM   #142 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC