America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by DrafterX. 46 replies replies.
Poll Question : Wikileaks is '.....' for democracy:
Choice Votes Statistics
Good 21 75 %
Bad 7 25 %
Total 28 100%

Wikileaks - Good or bad?
dstieger Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Holds governments accountable? Or hostage?
zitotczito Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
Not in favor but when you have corruption this deep how else do you bring this out.
jjanecka Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
It's good and bad. Like I hated how Snowden pretty much set back American cyber security 25 years. That dude is a traitor to this country. By that same token, Hillary is also a traitor to the United States and exposing her is probably a good thing.
gummy jones Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
dstieger wrote:
Holds governments accountable? Or hostage?


when the gov (read oligarchy) holds the citizens hostage it seems pretty reasonable
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I have mixed feelings as well.. but Hillary coulda prevented this.. cracks me up when the Hillary camp complains about all this illegal activity is being discovered thru illegal means... Mellow
bob-o Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-09-2014
Posts: 32

It has filled the role that the media used to fill. It's necessary. And in that sense, good.

For those who complain with Snowden...corruption doesn't know party. It is what it is. You don't get to choose what is lawless. The only caveat is that we are dependent on what Wikileaks determines is to be published--and we could be missing out on distilling that information ourselves. Which is why we need more of these types of agents like Wikileaks.

Jack

dstieger Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
As someone who spent a good deal of time responsible for safeguarding TS SCI secrets, I'm very disturbed and angry at Wikileaks, and Snowden, especially. I, too, have mixed feeling to some extent....in that I acknowledge that in time, we will probably have been fortunate that some of the Snowden stuff was made public...much as that admission pains me. Governments will all have secrets. People, even public people will have private stuff that should remain private. It is up to us to put leaders in place that we can trust with that responsibility. (That isn't a not-so-subtle slam on HRC....I wasn't even thinking about her when I made this poll.) I just think that despite the fact that Wikileaks will publicize some stuff that probably should be public -- I cannot approve of them. At all.
gummy jones Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
i think we need a better definition of terms here

correct me if im wrong, but snowden and wikileaks are different things.

just as hilary's exploits are different yet

wikileaks may be the commonly used vessel but the acts themselves are mutually exclusive
tonygraz Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
Wikileaks seems to have an agenda which seems to have made them less trustworthy in what they release.
Anyone who thinks Snowden is not a traitor may have to explain to us where that line is crossed.
Gene363 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
Like the ACLU, you don't always agree with what they say and do, but you know they come with freedom.
Gene363 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
FWIW, what sort of idiot puts anything they want kept secret on an electronic device, let alone one connected to the Internet?

I expect our government to keep legitimate secrets secret and their business in the sunshine, they appear incapable of doing either. I don't like that our secrets have been exposed, but the incompetent SOBs that exposed our secrets and do corrupt things while in government service cannot be allowed the cover of secrecy. The integrity of our government is more important than keeping secrets about meddling in other countries governments and spying on our own citizens.
Stinkdyr Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Corruption dies in the light of day.

fog
MACS Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
As Dave said, as a person who held a clearance I understand the dilemma of this. Secrets involving national security are supposed to be protected. Government corruption needs to be exposed, however; so I can't hate the leaks, entirely.

What HRC did, though... is something for which a military member would have been court-martialed. And that is a cold, hard fact.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
tonygraz wrote:
Wikileaks seems to have an agenda which seems to have made them less trustworthy in what they release.
Anyone who thinks Snowden is not a traitor may have to explain to us where that line is crossed.


I don't think he's a traitor... if I was president I'd grant him instant immunity...

if he is a traitor, who did he betray? Evil politicians? A government breaking its own laws? I guess disobedience to the devil is still disobedience... I'd have a hard time calling it treason but I guess the devil wouldn't...
ZRX1200 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Less trust worthy because they're not outing W....

LMAO
opelmanta1900 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
^My thought exactly... suddenly they have an "agenda"... lmao indeed...
cacman Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Snowden revealed illegal surveillance techniques used by the US guberment against its own people and worldwide. Most techniques are deemed unconstitutional & illegal, and the programs are halted. Yet Snowden is still the "bad guy" for being a whistle-blower, and living in exile in Russia. Yeah... it pays to rat-out the US guberment.
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I got an email from some Russian chicks wanting to come here... they were HOT..!! Love
teedubbya Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Felony
cacman Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
teedubbya wrote:
Felony

Or oxymoron?
Having to break the law in order to prove the US guberment is breaking many laws?
teedubbya Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Nope. Just a felony.
teedubbya Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I tend not to pick and choose when a felony is ok or not.

I also think illegal aliens are illegal.

Some think it's ok to pick and choose based on your opinion. I don't.

If you want to allow a law to be broken change the law.
teedubbya Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
That's also not to say I never skirt the law (like speeding) but I do so knowing I am breaking the law and will pay the price if caught.
jjanecka Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
The bottom line is that Snowden put a lot of people's lives in danger.
tailgater Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
I tend not to pick and choose when a felony is ok or not.

I also think illegal aliens are illegal.

Some think it's ok to pick and choose based on your opinion. I don't.

If you want to allow a law to be broken change the law.



You gotta help me on this one.
Which tone inflection should I use to somehow make this NOT sound self righteous?
I've tried Olde English Aristocrat. You know: Dear Watson, I do believe that a felonious act will remain felonious as long as the law upholds the original ideals as set forth by Her Majesty. Wink wink, nudge nudge.


I know I'm not alone when I say Bravo to you, sir.
Now let me start the slow applause, and allow you to revel in it while it builds in intensity.



CLAP





















CLAP



MACS Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
^^This, folks... is a masterful example of sarcasm that one can grow accustomed to in the Northeast.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
jjanecka wrote:
The bottom line is that Snowden put a lot of people's lives in danger.

who?
gummy jones Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
once again, wikileaks is a vessel aside from snowden, hilary, etc. they are not mutually inclusive.

in general, there are laws protecting whistleblowers for a reason

now i understand the discrepancy when it comes to snowden

hilary's very actions jeopordized state security to benefit her own lot, much more so than the eventual shedding of light did (and by then russia, china, etc already knew what the american people did not). this mess came directly from her wrongdoing.

so in her case i say wikileaks is good
teedubbya Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
If this is protected by the whisltleblower laws then there is no issue. Usually that involves taking available info to the proper authority. If you think it covers hacking in to email then releasing publicly, I disagree but then there is nothing to fear from court.

Tail I'm not sure which inflection you should use but I find trying to remain consistent in my views when it doesn't serve what I really want helps when the table turns which it always does.

I try not to be a hypocrite as much as possible. I fail at times.

If calling a felony a felony and thinking it is wrong even when it serves me is wrong I'm ok with that.
gummy jones Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
i wasnt suggesting that whistleblower laws pertain to this specifically but that events like this are routinely criticized by one side or the other and, for that reason, laws exist to protect the party that comes forth. its always a sticky situation.

if someone selling influence and jeopardizing state security for personal and political gain is brought to light with questionable tactics (that once again were used by other countries already - the info was in our enemies hands prior to being posted on wikileaks), then i guess im okay with it.

but i have never tried to hide my opinion that hilary is the most corrupt politician to rise over decades and trick the people into claiming she is their champion.
Gene363 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
teedubbya wrote:
Felony


Felony? Check

Whistleblower? Possibly, but there are protocols that are supposed to be followed, inevitably to the whistleblower's peril, so in almost all cases the route to vindication is through the pits of hell and possibly criminal court.

Jury Nullification? Check
tailgater Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:


Tail I'm not sure which inflection you should use but I find trying to remain consistent in my views when it doesn't serve what I really want helps when the table turns which it always does.

I try not to be a hypocrite as much as possible. I fail at times.

If calling a felony a felony and thinking it is wrong even when it serves me is wrong I'm ok with that.



So you're going with French Canadian.
I should have suspected as much.
le HockeyDad will be proud.


tailgater Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
MACS wrote:
^^This, folks... is a masterful example of sarcasm that one can grow accustomed to in the Northeast.


I prefer the term "embrace".

frankj1 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Of course you do.
tailgater Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I prefer a long term embrace.

MACS Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
tailgater wrote:
I prefer a long term embrace.



Ain't nobody gots time fo dat! Fo reealzzz.
TMCTLT Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
gummy jones wrote:
i wasnt suggesting that whistleblower laws pertain to this specifically but that events like this are routinely criticized by one side or the other and, for that reason, laws exist to protect the party that comes forth. its always a sticky situation.

if someone selling influence and jeopardizing state security for personal and political gain is brought to light with questionable tactics (that once again were used by other countries already - the info was in our enemies hands prior to being posted on wikileaks), then i guess im okay with it.

but i have never tried to hide my opinion that hilary is the most corrupt politician to rise over decades and trick the people into claiming she is their champion.




^^^ THIS
DrMaddVibe Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
Post #2...Meet Post #3.

How you doin'?
namadio Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 11-24-2014
Posts: 1,621
Wikileaks is bad because it gives **** birds like edward snowden and pfc bradletta manning delusions of grandeur. Dont **** agree to safe guard classified information if you dont intend to do so. There are ways to raise issues, discipline those abusing access, and solve problems outside of leaking to the media or worse wikileaks. Despite the results i cant condone cyber attacks against any us citizen, let alone a presidential candidate and her staff. Too many of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that serve this country are my friends and colleagues. Anything diminishing their edge over our adversaries, i cannot abide.

"In God we trust, all others we monitor"
cacman Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
teedubbya wrote:
If this is protected by the whisltleblower laws then there is no issue. Usually that involves taking available info to the proper authority.

How can you turn information over to the proper authorities, when the proper authorities are involved in the felonies being exposed themselves???

That's like our asking our own gubement to investigate themselves. Why does that sound familiar? Oh that's right... that already happens. Let's ignore the crimes committed by our guberment and its officials against the American people, and instead concentrate on prosecuting those that expose the crimes. It's all Russia's and Assange's fault.

Why wait 60 or 90 days for info to be released AFTER an election? Why hide anything? Why the secrecy in an unwritten "code" that may contradict the written law? The People have a right to know as soon as the "Officials" we elected into office know. They are after all... servants of the people.
gummy jones Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
cacman wrote:
How can you turn information over to the proper authorities, when the proper authorities are involved in the felonies being exposed themselves???


of, for and by the people - aint ya heard!?!
Covfireman Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
MACS wrote:
As Dave said, as a person who held a clearance I understand the dilemma of this. Secrets involving national security are supposed to be protected. Government corruption needs to be exposed, however; so I can't hate the leaks, entirely.

What HRC did, though... is something for which a military member would have been court-martialed. And that is a cold, hard fact.




I don't understand how anyone who has held a security clearance wouldn't be outraged over her deeds but by the way the FBI and DOJ let her (hilary) slide without prosecution?

It's a shame Snowden had to do what he did but our government is invading everyone's privacy . As to if Snowden is a traitor? He would be one to this government but not to the American people . HIstory will decide if he's a traitor . I don't know of anyone who was killed by what he exposed but he did set our Intelligence agencies back years . If I had the knowledge he had of the extent of the NSA's domestic activities I don't know where I'd have went with it .
teedubbya Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Cacman there are absolutely avenues that could have and were not followed. They are available.

Snowden is a traitor. If you are happy having him sit with Putin good on you but there is this v for vendetta facade that is bunk.
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Who wouldn't want to hang with Putin..?? Mellow
Brewha Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
You mean if they were taken alive?
DrafterX Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Who dat..?? Huh
Users browsing this topic
Guest