If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #3353
Joined: Sat Oct 23 2010, 11:21PM
Location: Greece
Posts: 90
GluD, I find your attitude on this matter nothing less than disturbing for you age. You are all about the law, how governments are all-mighty and we can do nothing but sit in our place and sh*t up. Why so much defeatism? Yes, i know it is illigal to expose (not steal, as stated by Mattski and Nicko) secret government documents, but really, when the government is breaking all the laws, how can they then enforce them to me? You seem like the guy who has a big "LAW uber alles" tattooed on his forehead, and cheers when a murdered or rapist is let loose because of a technicality in the trial, in spite of being 100% guily and proven so.
Believe me, i know all about Nazis and resistance, my grandparents lost many friends when they hang them to the village square. Do you know that the next day the resistance rebels would come back so the villagers would give them food and supplies? They did not just shoot a Nazi for the fun of it, they where sabotaging mainly the supply routes so the Nazi soldiers at the front didn't have bullets to shoot of food. Blowing up a bridge meant that that maybe 5000 soldiers would end up losing a major battle because their artillery shells never came in time. Also here in pireus, people were dying every day because of the Nazi occupation (from not having food to eat), don't you think that trying to get rid of the Nazis was a good idea, even if that meant you are risking your life and others?
Imagine this, Denmark goes to was against Germany and your brother is drafted and goes to fight in the front. I am an army officer who stumbles upon a top secret report that reveals that the true reason the war started is not what our government told us (the German Nazi party was growing strong again and they were planning to invade us, so we must beat them to it), but that the Queen's husband had an love affair with German President's wife. If i contacted you anonymously and told i could (illigaly) give you that top secret report, would you (illigaly) expose it to the press?
Grenadier, Please keep in mind that when you are young and "free", is a lot easier to be "actively involved" (as opposed to just writing a few posts here) in protesting (against any issue). When you have a mortgage and car payments it is a bit more difficult, when you have a family that depends on you and a 8-to-5 job you could lose at any moment, that is where the really hard choices come...
And for everyone who wants to know, please note that i am not affiliated with any political party, or group of any kind. I am just a guy staring at the massive injustice that rules the world, and sadly doing nothing about it.
Registered Member #1221
Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196
"You seem like the guy who has a big "LAW uber alles" tattooed on his forehead, and cheers when a murdered or rapist is let loose because of a technicality in the trial, in spite of being 100% guily and proven so." Where the hell did you get that from? My example from the danish court system were those 3 guys was wrongly imprisoned based on the lies of a women (probably the same happening to mr assange) was to illustrate how someone could successfully provide legally obtained infomation(the video where the girl admit she lied) and get a positive out come (in case it wasnt clear, the guys was released from prision because of the video where she admit the lies). Had the video been stolen or otherwise ilegal obtained the guys would probably still be in prison. That is at least in some cases the diffrence betwen legally and illegally obtained infomation. That was all i wished to illustrate with that example.
I would be very suprised if a court were to convict someone, especially goverment officials, based on stolen evidence. I am not a laywer and have no experience with the court systems, although I have read some things about the laws. Simply just trying to understand how those systems work can be very helpfull in understanding certain things in life.
If one were to leak a document saying that the fictional danish war on germany was based on queen bollocks having an afair with somebody, it should be that document only and the person should surrender himself as soon as possiable (not go hiding out like mr assange did) and not have his friends start all sorts of cyber attacks online or any other ilegal activities. In that case I'd consider it a noble act instead of this rude disrespect for socioty which I think wikileaks are displaying by leaking everything without interest of its relevance, potential threats posed by the documents, the cyber attacks against mastercard,visa, paypal when mr assange was imprisioned and so on.
Maybe you guys are right and Ive got it wrong and the goverment isnt gonna screw our lives up because of this. But how can they possiably just sit down and let this tempting chance of getting all those "safety" and "security measures" done they always wanted to do. This is their perfect opertunity, prestented by the person you all seem to adore so much, mr assange. Only time will tell I supose...
There is tons of examples where the law is really shit, but it doesnt matter whether you like it or not you still have to follow it or be prepared to go down. If one person choose to break the law fine its his problem, but if he choose to break it to such an extent that the politcians find it necessary to screw the rest of the population up, it suddenly becomes OUR problem too. All I'd wish for simply is for people to quit the "i wanna be like the Che and revolunaize the world!!!1" kliche and get real, you dont have to sit down and sh*t up as Tesla Fan so nicely put it, but if people could just follow the laws it would be for the benefit of all of us.
Just wondering, but whats my age got to do with anything, and I dont have any tattoos anywhere, certainly not in the face, I got a rather large beard though.
Registered Member #3353
Joined: Sat Oct 23 2010, 11:21PM
Location: Greece
Posts: 90
"Where the hell did you get that from?"
GluD wrote ...
Fri Dec 10 2010, 04:20PM ...If you dont stand a chance you might as well quit and minimise the damages... ...You dont realize its illegal to steal classified documents and that it is also illegal to publish them for everyone to see? It simply doesnt matter what is on the paper its still ilegal.Its not a criminal action "for me" its simply a criminal action, that is the law... ...He have to follow the law as the rest of us or take the conqeseunces, which in this case as I have allready stated serval times, gonna be rather unpleasant for all of us...
GluD wrote ...
Fri Dec 10 2010, 05:48PM ...Surely we have a right to know but we dont have a right to break the law to get to know it... ...But if the so called protest is breaking the law I dont think it does anybody any good... ...Finding new, legal, ways that hold up in court...
GluD wrote ...
Fri Dec 10 2010, 06:00PM ...but it doesnt change the fact that people shouldnt break the law to "prove" others breaking it. As I mentioned I dont think the documents would hold up to prove for example war crimes in court, because they are stolen...
Come on, you have to admin that "law" and it's derivatives are some of your favorite words... Anyway, everyone is entitled to his own opinion and besides i did not started to post on this thread to have a personal confrontation with you. Maybe you are right, maybe the documents have been edited by wikileaks and maybe this will lead to some kind of internet censorship. Time will tell.
As for your age, i would expect a more "change the world", "freedom of information" and such like that attitude from a young person like you.
Registered Member #1221
Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196
Well if the "law uber alles" had been in danish and not in a rather curious combination of english and german, and I had been more fond of tattoos and laws in general ( im actually not particularly happy about laws, Im just trying to explain why it would be a good idea for people to follow them), that might have been a possiablity, however that is not the case nor is it relevant for this thread.
It was therefor the latter part I was "suprised" by: "...and cheers when a murdered or rapist is let loose because of a technicality in the trial, in spite of being 100% guily and proven so." Why should I cheer when a murdere is set free? (in fact a murder escaped prison today, here in denmark, and i certainly did not cheer when i heard that.) Where do you get that. I didnt make the law I just wish people would follow it so this world would be a nicer place to be, if people didnt blow up airplanes, we didnt have to be scanned at the airport. If for every law there was, we could say "nobodys ever violated that law, lets remove it" I think we would have a chance.
If nobody ever pointed a laser at a airplane, laser would still be legal, if some kewl kids didnt make bombs, there would still be chemicals in the stores. Very few laws are just made up out of nothing.
I think you have been focusing on the wrong aspect of my postings. I would thus like to ask a question, do you belive its good that wikileaks do what they do if we assume it means less freedom (which im conviced it does) for us in the future, or would you rather have they hadn't done it and we could remain at the level of freedom we are at now? Of course its a hypothetical question or whatever its called, but lets just assume thats how it is. If everybody had followed the law back when it was reasonable we wouldnt be in such a sh*thole now.
I simply use the word law alot in this thread because I find it necessary, am I really the only person on here whom thinks its ridiculous to claim a right to steal infomation, and then refer to the "freedom of infomation", surely the people with the infomation, even if withholding it ilegally, still have the "freedom not to be the victim of theft"? You statisfy your own freedom but craps all over on the other guys, true revolutenary style.
My point, one of them anyway, is that wikileaks screwed up so we'll get less instead of more freedom out of this trouble, wheveras if they had provided legal proff of the goverments misbehavoir, it would have been a much better chance for us.
"As for your age, i would expect a more "change the world", "freedom of information" and such like that attitude from a young person like you" Haha, so I guess that makes me less naive than my fellow "youngsters"? Could be worse than that I'll have to say. Although I am aperantly still stupid enough to try and convince you that it would be a good thing for all of us to follow the law.
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
GluD, My opinion is that if politicians didn't break the law and then withold information from the voters, journalists wouldn't need to expose them in the first place.
In my opinion it is people like Assange who are attempting to bring dishonest politicians to account.
Politicians (corrupt ones in particular) will use any excuse to remove the freedoms and rights that have been fought for in the past.
Where will we end up if we allow the politicians to convince us that we need even more draconian laws to prevent journalists from exposing them (the politicians) for the liars that they are?
Registered Member #3353
Joined: Sat Oct 23 2010, 11:21PM
Location: Greece
Posts: 90
GluD wrote ...
I think you have been focusing on the wrong aspect of my postings. I would thus like to ask a question, do you belive its good that wikileaks do what they do if we assume it means less freedom (which im conviced it does) for us in the future, or would you rather have they hadn't done it and we could remain at the level of freedom we are at now?
I am focusing on the aspect i do not agree with. As for your question, my answer (and it is not an easy one the way you laid down my choices) is that wikileaks should still expose the information. I have to tell you that i disagree with you that this will lead to less freedom, but even if it does (how much? a say maybe a little more)i would still prefered it that way. That is because that is the only way to get the mass of the people informed, motivated and hopefully "mobilized", protest, do something to get all the other freedoms and rights back. That is the best "service" wikileaks provides in my opinion, exposing all "there" lies and so getting people pissed off about that.
Also people here are from many different countries, and things are not the same in all of them. Maybe things are great over there in Denmark, i really have no idea. As for the US, i think they are the most "oppressed" and the general public does not seem to care much about that (again, i blame mostly the media, which are "in bed" with the politicians, which are "in bed"/controlled by the big lobbies, and so on). We here in Greece really bend over and got into the IMF and i fear (almost know for sure, see Argentina during IMF) that this just the beginning.
Are you sure you have not connected right-wrong with legal-illegal? That is what i was trying to show with the murdered/rapist-technicality example, it is legal but wrong. The same thing (but the opposite side) with the Danish-German war.
I agree that if we can make something legitimately that would be great, but things does not work that way. Please note that in the Danish-German war example, there is no way of legally exposing the info. Either you brake the law, or the truth never comes out. You aggred that in a case with such significance, the right (and not legal) thing is to expose the info. So it is just a matter of how "big" the info is! What if the top secret info was about an officer stealing 50 euros from the army? It surely should be exposed, but if that means both our careers would end and we might face jail time, then what? If we could just send it anonymously to the police/judge (and thus suffer no consequences) then what? Did consequences play a role in your answer of was it only based at ethics? That is why i think that Assange deserves some respect.
Here in Greece back in 2008 we a had a major political-church scandal, there was some fuzz, and a hearing at the Parliament was scheduled in 2009. Two days before the hearing, the government closed the Parliament for a month (!!!) for the 2009 European Parliament election, a full month before it. In all other European Parliament elections, the Parliament closed only for 5-6 days and only at the time the elections where in progress. The public was stunned, we were all expecting to see what would happend to the hearings and "they" closed the freaking Parliament so they could cover up! Needless to say a new hearing was never scheduled and case closed... Our former Prime Minister was reporting fake data about our economics for five years (!) to the Europeans council. As a result (not really, but this is the "official" story) Greece sold out to the IMF when the new government exposed the real data to Europe. Our salaries and pensions are being choped in half, and what happend to the lying Prime Minister? Nothing, he is still at the back end of the Parliament seats, probably laughing at us. If i lyied about my economics at the IRS, i would go to jail!
So is the law working? Do you think egalitarianism (that is what i get using Google Translate, meaning is "same law applies to all citizens"), a fundamental principle of democracy is applied? Would you think an exposed document would do any difference to the cases result above? No, but it can piss off people enough to get them to do something, get the mass of the public take action, nothing less that that will do any difference. A group of people protesting is just too small, at this point we must have the majority of the population protesting to get something done...
Please do not think of me as some kind of anarchist, i do not imply that we should wear ski masks and starting to put fire at innocent people's cars or anything like that. All i say is that if you see the big picture, exposing secret documents does not bother me at all, if one side is cheating, you either bend the rules yourself or you will surely lose.
Also i again drifted off-post, sorry for that and sorry my long post, i have a bad case of insomnia which i try to fight using alcohol...
Edit:
Ash Small wrote ...
My opinion is that if politicians didn't break the law and then withold information from the voters, journalists wouldn't need to expose them in the first place.
+1
Edit 2: I was planning to talk about this, i just forgot writing all that above:
GluD wrote ...
"As for your age, i would expect a more "change the world", "freedom of information" and such like that attitude from a young person like you" Haha, so I guess that makes me less naive than my fellow "youngsters"? Could be worse than that I'll have to say. Although I am aperantly still stupid enough to try and convince you that it would be a good thing for all of us to follow the law.
I do not mean "naive" when i say "young", neither "inexperienced" nor "too young to have an opinion" and certainly not "stupid". I think that it is commonly agreed that the young people are the most "rebellious" of all ages, that is what i was trying to say. And please, do try to convince me, as i am doing the same thing, this is called a confrontation and it could do all of us good. Or we could just agree that we disagree
Registered Member #1221
Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196
In the Danish-German war example I agreed that it would be a noble act if one leaked the specific document and then surrender himself and take the punishment. That is not what wikileaks did. They leaked everything and started cyber attacks at the people whom they disagree with.
If a officer stole 50 bucks from the army Im sure you could just whisper it the person above that officer.. not really a matter for the general public is it?
No the law does not apply equally to all citizen, although that cant really be a suprise for anybody. I agree that it takes a large group of people. that group would be larger if things were done legally, I think alot of people myself included, dont approve of this because of the crimes wikileaks and their associates are responsipel for.
Ash, obivously there would be no documents to steal if they was already available. Im not saying we should sit back, Im saying that we should get the evidence in a legal manner and behave ourselves as responsipel people, not go hidding from the police, not hacking websites, at least thats what im trying to say, aperantly its not "working".
Undoubtly we'll be worse off if we just sat back and wacthed and did nothing the rest of our lifes, but we'll also be worse off if we just rush forward and threaten the goverment and provoke "panic solutions".
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
A democratic government is supposed to be there to serve its citizens. It's an organization for getting big, complicated things done that you couldn't do yourself. It collects taxes and gives you services in return.
That is the theory, in practice it's all too easy for the thing to take on a life of its own and use its citizens, or rather subjects, as means to its own end. There could be a kind of Darwinism at play: the most self-serving governments are the ones that survive.
So, we probably all have a civic duty to fight this tendency and make sure the government doesn't get any big ideas. In the UK about all we can do, legally, is vote in a different one now and again, which ends up being almost identical to the last one.
When it comes to taking actions that could be called "illegal", the distinction is between the letter of the law, and the spirit of it. Remember that the government has a tendency to use all of the means at its disposal for self-preservation, and that includes the passing of laws. If you try to agitate for change using only legal means, they can pass new laws whose sole purpose is to stop you, like the old UK Criminal Justice bill. But the spirit of those laws is fundamentally unfair, and maybe they should be broken.
Of course this one cuts both ways, genuine criminals can use it to argue that their illegal actions are somehow honourable and romantic. If you want to do the freedom fighter thing, you have to be brutally honest with yourself: are you really fighting for freedom, or just selling drugs and pirate DVDs?
In the recent riots in London, the protesters apparently used a Google Maps-based app to track the positions of riot police in real time and avoid being cornered. That kind of thing gives me hope for the future.
Registered Member #3353
Joined: Sat Oct 23 2010, 11:21PM
Location: Greece
Posts: 90
Steve McConner wrote ...
When it comes to taking actions that could be called "illegal", the distinction is between the letter of the law, and the spirit of it.
Steve i agree 100%
Also i will try to walk on a thin line and say that if there is a huge injustice taking place by the government and there is not a "legal" action you can take, or there is but due to the heavy (unjust) consequences that that action will bring no one dares to do anything, i would rather see riots in the streets than see nothing at all. Yes it not legal, yes it is not the best way to act, yes it might bring no results, but it sends the government a message and (hopefully) it helps to wake up the rest of the population so a better way to deal with this matter can be found (if you have the majority of the people involved).
Again, i am not cheering for the anarchists nor i suggest anyone to take violent actions, i just want to say that if i am dying of starvation and i can't find any lobster, cake or just some bread to eat, i would rather try to eat mud than just lay on my back and wait to die.
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
GluD wrote ...
That is not what wikileaks did. They leaked everything and started cyber attacks at the people whom they disagree with.
That is a falsehood of the absolute worst sort. Wikileaks is not cyber-attacking anyone. They have not asked for nor condoned any such attacks. Cyber-attacks are being committed on behalf of Wikileaks by unknown persons. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that these attacks are being carried out as a means to portray Wikileaks supporters as fanatical, or dangerous.
Tesla Fan wrote ...
A bunch of hackers "taking down" sites of companies like Mastercard, Visa, PayPal and such, is the absolute best news i heard this year. At least we will not go down without a fight!
I am not as enthusiastic. These very large corporations will be just fine in the face of attacks that left their sites inaccessible for mere hours. While it is encouraging to see people take action, I believe that actions like these only serve to marginalize Wikileaks and its supporters. It would be much more encouraging to see a tidal wave of YouTube videos showing people shredding their Visa/Mastercards in protest, but I doubt very many people are willing to inconvenience themselves to support a cause.
GluD wrote ...
I would be very suprised if a court were to convict someone, especially goverment officials, based on stolen evidence.
Most of the people whose wrongdoing has been exposed by Wikileaks could not be convicted in any court, with any amount of evidence. There is a vast and tangled network of laws, regulations, immunities, executive privileges, and even pardons that serve to protect these types of people. That is the whole argument in favor of Wikileaks; there is no legal avenue to pursue, no way to bring people like this to any sort of legal justice.
GluD wrote ...
As I mentioned I dont think the documents would hold up to prove for example war crimes in court, because they are stolen. So what is the point? You got some info but you cant use it for anything else than "now I know that too". Is it worth our freedom just to know that? And not be able to do anything about it because the info was obtained in an ilegal manner? I think not.
As I mentioned above, the point of this information is not to be able to take legal action; the vast majority of the people in Wikileaks documents are quite beyond the reach of any law. The point is to expose this information to the people of the world. Governments, as overreaching and vast as they can be, still derive their support from the people they govern. When a war is no longer supported by the people, the war (eventually) ends. When a government cannot convince its people of the necessity for war, war cannot happen (or is much more difficult).
GluD wrote ...
Undoubtly we'll be worse off if we just sat back and wacthed and did nothing the rest of our lifes, but we'll also be worse off if we just rush forward and threaten the goverment and provoke "panic solutions".
Ironically, most governments specialize in panic solutions, such as passing a glut of new laws and regulations on the heels of a terrible disaster that inspires national fear or outrage. It's hard for me to muster up a whole lot of sympathy when panic starts working the other way.
GluD wrote ...
I think alot of people myself included, dont approve of this because of the crimes wikileaks and their associates are responsipel for.
It's worth noting that Wikileaks has not been charged with any crime by any government anywhere. Assange has been charged with an unrelated (and arguably trumped-up) crime. There are plenty of people out there blustering about treason and espionage, but none have seen fit to attempt to make a case in a court of law. Instead, there have been calls for an assassination. Curious, don't you think?
GluD wrote ...
If a officer stole 50 bucks from the army Im sure you could just whisper it the person above that officer.. not really a matter for the general public is it?
Absolutely. But what do you do when all of the officer's superiors either refuse to take action against the theft, or even make it clear that they encourage theft? That's the situation we find ourselves in today. Low-ranking personnel are discovering webs of deceit, corruption, and lies that go all the way to the top. There's literally nobody within the organization (be it a government, an army, or a corporation) who will take steps to stop these objectionable actions. At that point, the only remaining choices are to sit on one's hands and hope it stops on its own, or to expose the entire scandal.
GluD wrote ...
There is tons of examples where the law is really shit, but it doesnt matter whether you like it or not you still have to follow it or be prepared to go down.
I agree to a point; one should expect punishment for breaking the law. However, when it comes to unjust laws, there are times when it is better to disregard them. For example, consider how many states in the US currently have no medical marijuana laws. What is more important in that case, following the letter of the law, or preventing the pain and suffering of a loved one?
Tesla Fan wrote ...
Please keep in mind that when you are young and "free", is a lot easier to be "actively involved" (as opposed to just writing a few posts here) in protesting (against any issue). When you have a mortgage and car payments it is a bit more difficult, when you have a family that depends on you and a 8-to-5 job you could lose at any moment, that is where the really hard choices come...
And for everyone who wants to know, please note that i am not affiliated with any political party, or group of any kind. I am just a guy staring at the massive injustice that rules the world, and sadly doing nothing about it.
Also keep in mind that this is by design; there's a reason most governments encourage personal debt. People with large amounts of debt stand to lose the most in case of financial or political upset. Consequently, not only do they not make waves, they tend to turn ferociously on those who do. Historically, people have been willing to turn a blind eye to even the worst sorts of travesties in order to preserve their own lifestyle.
However, that doesn't mean that you're stuck, or that there's nothing you can do at all. You still have a vote, and are capable of voting for the candidate that will do what you consider to be the most good, and not just the most good for yourself. When ignorant statements or viewpoints present themselves in your day-to-day life, do not allow them to stand. Not all political change has to come in the form of riots in the street (though most rapid political change unfortunately does). Sometimes it just takes a lot of people finally standing up for what is right.
Steve McConner wrote ...
But to whom? I'm sure the US Government thinks that Wikileaks presents a clear and present danger to them. Obviously we know that the First Amendment is not to be interpreted in this way: it specifies the rights of citizens, not government bodies, politicians and "Men In Black". But does it? Where in the US constitution does it actually spell out the exact extent of skulduggery that the government is allowed to indulge in, in the interest of preserving itself?
I think that there's a valid "clear and present danger" argument if the US Government can establish a real clear and present danger to operatives or informants in the field, as they have claimed. The problem as I see it is that there's no realistic way to censor Wikileaks in the US, and even if there were, the rest of the world would still have access to the information. It doesn't seem like a fruitful avenue for the government to pursue. At any rate, I wouldn't look too deeply into the US Constitution to find out what powers the government does or does not have. Most of the government's current powers are actually prohibited by the US Constitution (any powers not expressly granted are reserved by the states and the people), but a very convoluted interpretation of the Commerce Clause allows them to go ahead anyway. Current drug laws in the US are an excellent example.
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London
In the UK about all we can do, legally, is vote in a different one now and again, which ends up being almost identical to the last one.