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 #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
Hazmatt_(The Underdog) wrote ...
I would say there is nothing to gain from this thread.
Oh I'm sure there are others here besides myself who find your satire on the right-wing extremist-and-moral-imbecile as deft and skillful as it is comic! And this final call for censorship of dissenting voices! Straight out of the Third Reich! Very witty! What fun! Keep it up!
Registered Member #135
Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 12:06AM
Location: Anywhere is fine
Posts: 1735
Steve, you're blowing my cover! ;p Jeeze.. that's been there for what 2 years now and you're the first to notice, hahaha, talk about hiding in plain sight.
I'm not trying to censor anyone, but "You People" don't have a damn clue how "Systems" and "Procedures" work, and it's really sad. You ought to take some time to find out how the legal system handles breaches instead of postulating what you "Feel", THAT is why there is nothing to learn from this thread, you're not even close.
That is all I'm trying to tell you guys. You can't "Make up" the law the way you want it, the system has been this way for many decades, since before most of us were born and it's your responsibility to know something about the "process".
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
GluD wrote ...
Its hardly the time worth argueing more about that, lets just say they arent connected and get over it. Allright?
Agreed. We're just going in circles at this point anyway.
Hazmatt_(The Underdog) wrote ...
Chris, Wikileaks did violate the law.
If you know anything about the process of handling documents, its called dissemination. The responsible party of the documentation has to give approval to disseminate any or all of the information, and they would have to gain approval of, for example the State Department to name one, there are many but I won't go into that.
I appreciate your input. Honest question: do you also believe that the New York Times violated the law by publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971? Should the New York Times editor who decided to print the papers have been prosecuted?
Registered Member #135
Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 12:06AM
Location: Anywhere is fine
Posts: 1735
Chris, I’m going to give you an HONEST answer, but you’re going to have to try to not take it personally because with this kind of question, it’s an obvious attempt to point out hypocrisy in a system that is not perfect, and you’re asking me to pick a side and see if I falter. I am going to try to answer your question in a number of ways because, and don’t take this personally, I think it’s a stupid question, I think this thread is rampant with buffoonery, and we’re all a little too old to be arguing about what free speech is, and I’ll elaborate why: (the claws must come out a little but it’s for a good educational cause) 1. You’re asking me “do you believe…†First of all, what I believe has no bearing on the law. The law is black and white by it’s creation, just like what I am writing now. We decide what is in the grey, but I am not going to go into that because I want to look at the facts. (that will come later)
Taking a liberal stance, I could believe anything I want about the law. I could believe that I can drive the freeway at 80 MPH. I can prove that I am capable of this, and I can argue that I have a “greater appreciation and skill in driving the freeway then other people†simply because I drive it every day to work and back. When I get pulled over for breaking the well established speed limit of 65 MPH, I can argue all day with the police officer that I am capable of driving in excessive speed, but that cannot invalidate the law, 65 MPH, no matter how hard I believe in myself.
So lets knock-it-off with all the “I believe this way†or “I Feel…â€, the Law does not Feel Nor does it care what you believe. When it comes to a National issue the law is even more un-feeling, so that’s not going to fly folks.
2. I don’t subscribe to picking out a single point of hypocrisy to try to prove a point. I’m getting tired of people trying to use these “tactics†and thinking this proves something. I can demonstrate unequal treatment under the law as well with any of these “Lindsay Lohan†types that get pulled over for Cocaine possession and DUI, which get off because they are role models, when my good friend nearly went to jail for a year for drunk in public. Paris Hilton was sent home because she acted like a little brat in her jail cell. All we are proving today is that if you act like a big enough ass you can get your way.
3. Censorship is an interesting problem because I am presenting information, the opposite of censorship, and yet I am being labeled as a “right wing censorâ€. I have no interest in restricting access to information, but if you as an individual live a life of “make believe†and disregard information that is factual, then you are censoring yourself and have chosen to live a fantasy. There isn’t much to be done after that other then walk-on-by because you can’t un-censor someone who censors everything in their perceived-controlled reality.
4. Freedom of the press/speech is also an interesting “conceptâ€. We have freedoms but we cannot slander, threaten the lives of others (a friend of mine got to talk to a deputy for that one), threaten the life of powers that be, the president, yell “fire†in a theater, give national secrets to foreign governments, etc. The claim is that the Press has the right to print classified material and that is just silly. The Press has no more right to this material then you have the right to Coca-Cola formula, or Microsoft’s source code, or whatever, pure nonsense. I would argue that if anyone truly had freedom of speech/press, then you could print or say whatever you wanted, and no one really can, so that notion goes to the nieve. We all know that the U.S. keeps or tries to keep it’s secrets, and if you want to claim that a particular country is superior because it does not play games with information and national security, then I submit that you can test this for yourself without reprisal, that is if that is the truth. So if one were foolish enough to go to their local British intelligence or Scotland Yard and demand access to classified material, e.g. names and whereabouts of spies, or close encounters with aliens, then the requestor would be provided with that information. But this is a vastly nieve belief, and you would be laughed at while being tossed out on your ass.
5. I’m really “done†with the whole “My country is superior to yours†garbage. We’re not in grade school here, it’s time to act like adults, that is if one truly believes in one global society. My country has its faults, and I don’t really care anymore, there’s too much bullshit to keep up with, but the EU is full of problems too, so drop the act. If Great Britain were so great, why is it that you can’t fertilize your garden without the bomb squad showing up, or buy proper leaded solder, start a rocket club, and yet your country is so much better than mine. If your country weren’t so backward and full of buffoons, Monty Python would not exist to satire them. So enough with the overhead twaddle, it had to be said to get to the marrow and to knock down all the “walls†the “Roger Waters†of the world like to erect. (Love the music, can’t stand the politics).
Starting off with some facts, the espionage act of 1917 from Wikipedia, please look for yourself: made it a crime: • To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both. • To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both. And the Pentagon Papers essentially: “the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance"
And now if we look at the espionage act of 1917, we have three issues: 1. The Johnson Administration itself was guilty of subverting critical information which interfered with the operation and “success†of the armed forces, therefore the Administration itself was guilty under these guidelines. 2. The information was disseminated for the sole purpose of “interfering with the operation of the armed forcesâ€, to bring to light the systematic lie the administration was perpetuating. 3. The operation of the Government was compromised by the publication of classified material without due process. And if you read on: Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.[ Did the New York Times violate the law (espionage act): that’s a pretty blatant yes. Should the editor have been prosecuted for publishing the material: yes, it’s a felony, and he was prosecuted. Now what you’re getting at is the old “moral quandary†of the situation, which never goes away but is simply put this way: 1. Both are in the wrong 2. Legal process is not prefect, but if you have a problem with it, change the process 3. No you don’t have the right to publish, disseminate, or interfere with the Govt. 4. The Government lies, always has, always will. That’s what it’s here for. If you don’t believe me just look for the utopia that was promised 50 years ago, it ain’t here and it ain’t comin’. 5. All president’s lie, get over it 6. Demand freedom of information, you will never even see the tip of the ice berg, why? Governments collect information on all of us every day, just look at phone chatter. It would be easy to point to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or Senate leaks of tracking Bin Laden by phone activity. Legally they should be prosecuted equally but are not. This is a separate issue of how corrupt a system is and how much “celebrity†the guilty party has. I’ve already established the preferential treatment, and I am merely re-stating what I am seeing as the “Legal Process.†If Assange is not executed like an average “fall guy,†it will be due to his celebrity.
Now I gotta go find some dinner, and look forward to guarding the aliens at work tomorrow and playing chess with them... woops!
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
Hazmatt_(The Underdog) wrote ...
Chris, I’m going to give you an HONEST answer, but you’re going to have to try to not take it personally because with this kind of question, it’s an obvious attempt to point out hypocrisy in a system that is not perfect, and you’re asking me to pick a side and see if I falter.
Not at all, I meant it as a honest question, not as an attempt to trip you up and spring some "ah-ha" moment on you later. You clearly have much more direct and hands-on experience with the legal issues surrounding handling classified information than most, and I wanted to get your input on an similar case that has already been played out. I appreciate you taking the time to craft a thoughtful and candid answer.
Hazmatt_(The Underdog) wrote ... Now I gotta go find some dinner, and look forward to guarding the aliens at work tomorrow and playing chess with them... woops!
Looks like you better gain some celebrity in a hurry!
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
Hazmatt, while you have your nose in TRW's classified files, can you comment on the following rumours:
1: President Obama is actually a failed experiment to genetically engineer a Pop Idol winner.
2: Hitler's brain is still alive in a jar, and connected to the IRS's computer system (using technology developed by TRW)
3: TV is actually a powerful mind-control technology (also developed by TRW) and the current epidemic of obesity is caused by commercials for junk food and beer. It can't be cured because the TV networks would lose their advertising revenue.
4: The internet is made of cats (by the same logic that says electronics runs on smoke)
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
Steve McConner wrote ...
Hazmatt, while you have your nose in TRW's classified files, can you comment on the following rumours:
1: President Obama is actually a failed experiment to genetically engineer a Pop Idol winner.
2: Hitler's brain is still alive in a jar, and connected to the IRS's computer system (using technology developed by TRW)
3: TV is actually a powerful mind-control technology (also developed by TRW) and the current epidemic of obesity is caused by commercials for junk food and beer. It can't be cured because the TV networks would lose their advertising revenue.
4: The internet is made of cats (by the same logic that says electronics runs on smoke)
These were all covered by the latest Wikileaks, sheesh:
1. Partly true. He was initially engineered to win a very special Senate edition of 1 vs 100.
2. Was true, is no longer true. Hitler's brain was needed to run the TSA, so currently the IRS mainframe is being powered by the brain of one Abby Normal.
3. You've got cause and effect reversed. After the late 1940's, TRW started adding psychoactive drugs to junk food and beer that fuels cravings for television. Television's NTSC refresh rate of 60Hz directly stimulates the brain in such a way that it causes the body's metabolism of calories to slow way down. Interestingly, PAL's refresh rate of 50Hz has no such effect, which is the primary reason Europe has been spared from the obesity epidemic.
4: Absolutely correct. Most people do not realize that the reason why feral cat populations are so high in urban areas is because of cats escaping from severed or leaky internet tubes. This is easily confirmed by sneaking up on a feral cat, picking it up, and clutching it tightly to your chest while making kissy noises. The cat will make a funny face, and you will laugh.
Registered Member #2261
Joined: Mon Aug 03 2009, 01:19AM
Location: London, UK
Posts: 581
I'll just add my belief: Wikileaks is a great place. Whistle blowers are heroes. I can fully understand the US prosecuting their employee who leaked the material, but that's another matter.
Up until this US stuff got 'Wikileaked' most people would have said Wikileaks provided a good service I think as the majority of stuff on there was about distant corrupt governments and other organisations. Mainly I would say that the only difference this time is that it's about the US who, like every other country feels selfrightous, but in their case they are in a position to do something about it, or at least try.
I'm uncertain about the publication of lists of soft high value targets. It seems irresponsible, but I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of Wikileaks making decisions over what should and shouldn't be leaked. I'd like to hear their opinion on this question.
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
